NationStates Jolt Archive

Can you have thought without language?

Clearly even animals are able to formulate thoughts, and surely before humans evolved speech we were able to communicate in other ways, so I believe the answer is yes.

However, what are the limits of thoughts that can be formed without language? Can they remain any more than nebulous, vague impression or mental pictures without even internal speech to focus and concentrate them? To what extent does speech actually help FORM our thoughts, as opposed to visa versa?

Consider, for example, your beliefs about something intangible like human nature. You may have an impression or a feeling about human nature, but does that constitute thought? Can you really THINK about human nature without verbalising (even internally)?

Some people do not think in words, but in pictures. Animals might do that, although they have their own primitive languages, to express simple things, such as pleasure or danger. People could think about human nature without needing words (human drowning cat = human bad to cats), but not on a very complex scale.
Just my thoughts ...

trick qhestion that is, but i believe that thought can be achieved without any verbal skills. You don;t need a language to represent an idea, perhaps a mental asociation. What about deaf people who have never learned sign language, they can surely think.

It's a very interesting question... one which I doubt anyone will be able to answer... but since when have we looked for the answers on these forums?

I think speech is absolutely central to our intelligence. Without speech, we can't formulate what we actually think about something, so we can't innovate. We can only come up with images that already exist, or are probable to exist, so we have major controls and boundaries put on our imagination. Without speech, we can't communicate what we see to anyone, so everything is permanently locked inside our head. I don't think it's possible to be creative without speech in any way. Whilst we can obviously think without speech, we can't construct, which is what elevates us from other animals, in my opinion.

For me, all of my thoughts are in speech, and I find it nearly impossible to visualise anything, so without it, I'd be at a loss, since it is the only way for me to regulate my thoughts. So speech formulates my thoughts, rather than anything to the opposite.

look at some primates that have been taught sign language. the feelings they express with sign language is not something bestowed to them through the sign language. rather, it is just a way of communicating those feelings. it is clear that the chimp understood the concept of being hungry for something specific such as an apple before it learned how to express that to its caregivers

trick qhestion that is, but i believe that thought can be achieved without any verbal skills. You don;t need a language to represent an idea, perhaps a mental asociation. What about deaf people who have never learned sign language, they can surely think.
But how complex can the thoughts be of a creature that is unable to formulate his or her thoughts with the tool of language?

Child development research shows us that the brain needs certain stimulation from an early age, or certain connections are never physically made. For example, a child that is raised in isolation, with little physical contact and never introduced to speech (Genie being the most famous examples http://www.feralchildren.com/en/showchild.php?ch=genie) is physically UNABLE to develop language to the extent that others her age have already developed.

These people are not without thoughts, but neither can they formulate their thoughts into speech, and neither can they said to be capable of higher thinking. They are not mentally retarded or genetically damaged in some way, but the connections necesary for speech and thought were never made.

trick qhestion that is, but i believe that thought can be achieved without any verbal skills. You don;t need a language to represent an idea, perhaps a mental asociation. What about deaf people who have never learned sign language, they can surely think.


I'd never thought of that, actually... shows the depths of my ignorance as far as this whole topic goes. I think some form of language is a necessity, as I can't see any way to quantify or rationalise anyones thoughts without something to really bind them in. Whether or not this comes in the forms of words, or images, I have no idea. You mention a deaf person who has never learned sign language.... isn't that rather rare? I once again admit that I don't really know that much about the topic, but isn't learning some sort of language a first priority of any child, regardless of whether they can hear or not?

It's a very interesting question... one which I doubt anyone will be able to answer... but since when have we looked for the answers on these forums?

I think speech is absolutely central to our intelligence. Without speech, we can't formulate what we actually think about something, so we can't innovate. We can only come up with images that already exist, or are probable to exist, so we have major controls and boundaries put on our imagination. Without speech, we can't communicate what we see to anyone, so everything is permanently locked inside our head. I don't think it's possible to be creative without speech in any way. Whilst we can obviously think without speech, we can't construct, which is what elevates us from other animals, in my opinion.

For me, all of my thoughts are in speech, and I find it nearly impossible to visualise anything, so without it, I'd be at a loss, since it is the only way for me to regulate my thoughts. So speech formulates my thoughts, rather than anything to the opposite.


This is a question to ponder isnt it? I was thinking about what you said Jordy about not being able to be creative without speech. It does make sense to think that way. But it made me think of my son. He's just a baby and has no vocabulary or way to express himself aside from crying, but for instance....

He was sitting in his highchair and there was a toy just out of his reach. I watched him reach and reach, but still he could not get it. He had a baby spoon in his hand that he had been chewing on. Well he began to point it at the toy and then ended up using the spoon to lengthen his reach and got the toy! You could see him thinking ''how can I get this toy?" Also, when we have him in the floor on a blanket, and he see's his sister across the room...he will look at her for a while and then he will rolll until he gets close to her. He cant crawl yet, so he has figured out "i can roll over there if i want to get closer" So I think he definitely has shown creativity in regards to problem solving. :)

It's a very interesting question... one which I doubt anyone will be able to answer... but since when have we looked for the answers on these forums?

I think speech is absolutely central to our intelligence. Without speech, we can't formulate what we actually think about something, so we can't innovate. We can only come up with images that already exist, or are probable to exist, so we have major controls and boundaries put on our imagination. Without speech, we can't communicate what we see to anyone, so everything is permanently locked inside our head. I don't think it's possible to be creative without speech in any way. Whilst we can obviously think without speech, we can't construct, which is what elevates us from other animals, in my opinion.

For me, all of my thoughts are in speech, and I find it nearly impossible to visualise anything, so without it, I'd be at a loss, since it is the only way for me to regulate my thoughts. So speech formulates my thoughts, rather than anything to the opposite.
Aha! I'm not sure if you meant construct something physically or construct thoughts, but I'm going with the latter.

I don't believe that without language, we are able to construct thoughts. That would mean that language is necessary for thought beyond the passive. To extend our thoughts to the future, to the intangible, to anything that is not directly in front of us or being experienced by us is not possible without language.

Or so my opinion goes:)

I think that thoughts can definitely be constructed without language, however, in order for those thoughts to progress, language would be necessary. Like the example I used with my son. He constructs thoughts all the time, but if he was never introduced to any form of language, I doubt he would be able to advance his thought process and would thus remain at a very low level of thinking intellect.

depends on your definition of language. Maybe thought is a 'language' - I think they are actually indistingwishable. By language though i dont mean English or Greek or anything but the abbility to comunicate -- so in my opinion language is comunication and thought needs the context of comunication to exist.

look at some primates that have been taught sign language. the feelings they express with sign language is not something bestowed to them through the sign language. rather, it is just a way of communicating those feelings. it is clear that the chimp understood the concept of being hungry for something specific such as an apple before it learned how to express that to its caregivers
Sign language is still language. It is a method of communication.

Now, in primates, this language is not particularly complex, nor is it possible to express very complex thoughts with it. This particular tool is not an adequate tool for the construction of thought.

Primates amongst themselves have other forms of communication which can not be discounted. However, to what extent are they able to communicate ideas that are intangible? Certainly they can express emotions such as love and anger or disgust, but can they think about what would happen if... can they predict the possible outcome of an action? Could they imagine what it would be like somewhere they've never been?

I think that basic feelings and sensations that one is experiencing or has experienced may not need language in order to exist. We can form images in our minds of our surroundings, of people that are familiar to us. We can not, however, begin to truly explore the intangible without language. Even children who are not yet able to speak have language...they soak it up like sponges as long as it is supplied. They may not be able to communicate with it, but they certainly understand parts of it, and that understanding grows with time. Isolate a child, and never give it language, and you will be unable later to teach it language.

Language actually alters the physical characteristics of our brains (this is real child development, not my opinion here). Could you then say that without language, our brains are physically incapable of forming the thoughts that those WITH language are capable of? (that is my hypothesis, not a fact:))

depends on your definition of language. Maybe thought is a 'language' - I dont think they are actually indistingwishable. By language though i dont mean English or Greek or anything but the abbility to comunicate -- so in my opinion language is comunication and thought needs the context of comunication to exist.
LOL on your unique way of spelling indistinguishable by the way:)

So if language is communication, would you say that sparrows have language? Why do they not exibit much advanced thinking then?

I think your abilities to communicate and to think are limited by the SCOPE of your language. If your language only allows you to express immediate sensations (hunger, desire, anger, fear), then your thoughts are limited to the immediate.

I don't think that the animal case is valid. It's not certain whether the chimp actually understands what is meant by the symbol or is just "a mindless manipulator of symbols" due to conditioning and training (if they really understood what is meant by our languages, wouldn't they have formulated a comparable language by now without human interference?) Without language, we can have sensations, perceptions, and their images, but I agree that without language we would be incapable of forming thoughts.

Aha! I'm not sure if you meant construct something physically or construct thoughts, but I'm going with the latter.

I don't believe that without language, we are able to construct thoughts. That would mean that language is necessary for thought beyond the passive. To extend our thoughts to the future, to the intangible, to anything that is not directly in front of us or being experienced by us is not possible without language.

Or so my opinion goes:)

It may be that we need language to be able to generate new thoughts, but to hold a thought without it being in a language is clearly possible. You could translate the thought that I have expressed here into Spanish, I could do the same into Portuguese. How is this possible if the thought is purely linguistic.

The argument that abstract ideas are linguistic is a little stronger, but still fails on the test of translatability. It is stronger as there are times when a term is untranslatable. Mañana does not translate as tomorrow. But it fails simply because we can recognise that mañana is not tomorrow, so there has to be a non linguistic understanding of the abstract concept.

So animals may have the ability to think. To show that language is not essential for thought though, does not show that thought exists in non language users.

Sign language is still language. It is a method of communication.

Now, in primates, this language is not particularly complex, nor is it possible to express very complex thoughts with it. This particular tool is not an adequate tool for the construction of thought.

Primates amongst themselves have other forms of communication which can not be discounted. However, to what extent are they able to communicate ideas that are intangible? Certainly they can express emotions such as love and anger or disgust, but can they think about what would happen if... can they predict the possible outcome of an action? Could they imagine what it would be like somewhere they've never been?

I think that basic feelings and sensations that one is experiencing or has experienced may not need language in order to exist. We can form images in our minds of our surroundings, of people that are familiar to us. We can not, however, begin to truly explore the intangible without language. Even children who are not yet able to speak have language...they soak it up like sponges as long as it is supplied. They may not be able to communicate with it, but they certainly understand parts of it, and that understanding grows with time. Isolate a child, and never give it language, and you will be unable later to teach it language.

Language actually alters the physical characteristics of our brains (this is real child development, not my opinion here). Could you then say that without language, our brains are physically incapable of forming the thoughts that those WITH language are capable of? (that is my hypothesis, not a fact:))



ok, here is an interesting point though. most mammals have been observed to show the same basic brain activity durring sleep concurrent with dreaming. this, in my opinion, is excelent evidence that even newborns have subconcious thought.

And as for isolation, this isn't a perfect example, but look at helen keller. she was blind and deaf with no concept of how to express the thoughts she was having. although she was cared for, she was in isolation in a sence. yet she was still eventually able to learn how to communicate through language. Also, I remember reading about a pair of twins who's guardien died while they were at an increadibly young age and the two were left to fend for themselves. they were discovered years later (one was anyway, as the other had passed away from injuries) and the two of them had developed their own language. it is basic human nature to give lable to objects in our surroundings.

So basically the question is "What is thought?", no?

LOL on your unique way of spelling indistinguishable by the way:)

So if language is communication, would you say that sparrows have language? Why do they not exibit much advanced thinking then?

I think your abilities to communicate and to think are limited by the SCOPE of your language. If your language only allows you to express immediate sensations (hunger, desire, anger, fear), then your thoughts are limited to the immediate.

our advanced language is a a byproduct of our need to express complex thoughts, yes i surposs sparows comunication can be a language (at least in my head :) ).

Are you talking about an individuals ability? i.e someone with a limited vocabuly can't think as much?

I think two good questions to ask is how much do our perceptions of things depend on our cognitive abilities and how much on our language resources? Where, and how, do these two questions meet?

If we lack the ability to fully describe what we see or feel, does that affect how we feel?

A docu on TV a while back on feral children (kids raised by animals) found that if they went without human contact and language at important stages of physical development (1-4 years) they lacked the ability to form proper language or develop empathy. The langauge area of the brain was stunted and never developed fully, regardless of how much effort was put into education and rehabilitation.

ok, here is an interesting point though. most mammals have been observed to show the same basic brain activity durring sleep concurrent with dreaming. this, in my opinion, is excelent evidence that even newborns have subconcious thought.

And as for isolation, this isn't a perfect example, but look at helen keller. she was blind and deaf with no concept of how to express the thoughts she was having. although she was cared for, she was in isolation in a sence. yet she was still eventually able to learn how to communicate through language. Also, I remember reading about a pair of twins who's guardien died while they were at an increadibly young age and the two were left to fend for themselves. they were discovered years later (one was anyway, as the other had passed away from injuries) and the two of them had developed their own language. it is basic human nature to give lable to objects in our surroundings.
Yes, it seems that in the Genie case, lack of physical contact also had a lot to do with her inability to develop language. The twins developed language, as you said between themselves and it was likely more complex than simple communication of immediates. Helen Keller is an interesting example though, and she sprang to mind almost immediately to punch holes in my theory.

Perhaps to deprive a human of ever developing lanuage, more is needed than just not exposing them to language? Helen Keller did not grow up in isolation, though she was cut off from communication, and she was still able to develop language. I know that physical connections are impaired in our brains as infants if we do not receive physical stimulation from others...perhaps this plays a greater key in language development than I thought....

It may be that we need language to be able to generate new thoughts, but to hold a thought without it being in a language is clearly possible. You could translate the thought that I have expressed here into Spanish, I could do the same into Portuguese. How is this possible if the thought is purely linguistic.

The argument that abstract ideas are linguistic is a little stronger, but still fails on the test of translatability. It is stronger as there are times when a term is untranslatable. Mañana does not translate as tomorrow. But it fails simply because we can recognise that mañana is not tomorrow, so there has to be a non linguistic understanding of the abstract concept.

So animals may have the ability to think. To show that language is not essential for thought though, does not show that thought exists in non language users.

How is a non-linguistic thought possible? That we can translate languages does not demonstrate that thought can be non-linguistic, merely that languages have a similar logical form (it is argued that languages only have meaning on the basis of their form, not on the actual symbols). We can then learn and follow the rules of the different language.

So basically the question is "What is thought?", no?
Yup. Nice use of language to sum it up!

So an infant has no language ....yet they can recognize their parent when they walk into the room? That is a thought. Thats recalling previous information.

So an infant has no language ....yet they can recognize their parent when they walk into the room? That is a thought. Thats recalling previous information.
Sorry, I was going to respond to this before, but I thought I'd be repeating myself.

An infant is born without language, but from the first second of their lives they are SURROUNDED by language. Even while they are pre-verbal, they have language. Comprehension comes before the ability to construct language for themselves, but the understanding of that language is key. Children who grow up completely isolated from language have trouble making the emotional connections to people that children surrounded by language are capable of (in any case, that is what the Genie case and others found...it may not be entirely because of lack of language).

Now, depending on their stage of development, the baby may not be able to REMEMBER the parent when that parent is not within view. That's why you can't play peekaboo with them until they are a few months old...they don't realise that you're still there behind the blanket, and they startle when you "appear" out of nowhere. Later on they are able to know things exist even when they can't see them. I'm not sure how much language has a hand in developing these abilities...

I would say the development of language as such has more to do with the psychological need to connect with another being. to be nurtured and have something else to nurture. it is known that children who are isolated form other children make deep psychological bonds with pets or even toys. this behavior is seen in a majority of gregarious preditory species. (with herbivores it is more of an instictual gathering for safety in numbers) a perfect example would be Coco and the kitten. Coco the gorilla needed the kitten to keep her company when her caretakers where not there to meet her psychological needs. she nurtured it as though it where a baby gorilla. another would be how a dog bonds with its master, and accepts them as just an oddly shaped dog. the dog then begins to learn some of the communication skills of its human companion, such as certain words, verbal inflections, and visual signals.

Sorry, I was going to respond to this before, but I thought I'd be repeating myself.

An infant is born without language, but from the first second of their lives they are SURROUNDED by language. Even while they are pre-verbal, they have language. Comprehension comes before the ability to construct language for themselves, but the understanding of that language is key. Children who grow up completely isolated from language have trouble making the emotional connections to people that children surrounded by language are capable of (in any case, that is what the Genie case and others found...it may not be entirely because of lack of language).
What about deaf children?

Sorry, I was going to respond to this before, but I thought I'd be repeating myself.

An infant is born without language, but from the first second of their lives they are SURROUNDED by language. Even while they are pre-verbal, they have language. Comprehension comes before the ability to construct language for themselves, but the understanding of that language is key. Children who grow up completely isolated from language have trouble making the emotional connections to people that children surrounded by language are capable of (in any case, that is what the Genie case and others found...it may not be entirely because of lack of language).

Now, depending on their stage of development, the baby may not be able to REMEMBER the parent when that parent is not within view. That's why you can't play peekaboo with them until they are a few months old...they don't realise that you're still there behind the blanket, and they startle when you "appear" out of nowhere. Later on they are able to know things exist even when they can't see them. I'm not sure how much language has a hand in developing these abilities...

All or most of that may be true, but it doesnt change the fact that infants can think. They may be exposed to language from the first minute of life, but they dont understand it so it has no bearing on what limited thought process they have. Can they imagine themselves drinking guava juice out of their bottle while relaxig in the Bahamas? No, of course not. But they can have thoughts without the knowledge of language...which was the question right?

What about deaf children?
What about them? Language is by no means completely verbal. Even if the parents don't sign, or don't realise yet that their child is deaf, they are still interacting with that child, using facial expressions, touch, and so on to communicate. If that is the only model, that will become the child's language. Once they are able to read lips or sign, their language is expanded and becomes a more versatile tool for developing thought.

What about them? Language is by no means completely verbal. Even if the parents don't sign, or don't realise yet that their child is deaf, they are still interacting with that child, using facial expressions, touch, and so on to communicate. If that is the only model, that will become the child's language. Once they are able to read lips or sign, their language is expanded and becomes a more versatile tool for developing thought.
But is body language an actual language?

our advanced language is a a byproduct of our need to express complex thoughts, yes i surposs sparows comunication can be a language (at least in my head :) ).

Are you talking about an individuals ability? i.e someone with a limited vocabuly can't think as much?
No, but someone with limited language ability is unable to formulate their thoughts as well. This is so hard to explain because I myself don't have the adequate language for what I am trying to express. Part of it is this...when I have a thought or a concept, that thought or concept becomes more clear, more REAL when I discuss it and explore it's boundaries through language. For example, let's take human nature. If you have a general idea about it, but never discuss it, never think about it using language, will it ever be anything but a nebulous FEELING?

My head is throbbing...this is hard to talk about:)

Use personal experiance- There's someone you want to talk to, and you really need to say something, you know what that something is, but you don't know how to put it in words. It's on the "tip of your tongue", as the expression goes.

All or most of that may be true, but it doesnt change the fact that infants can think. They may be exposed to language from the first minute of life, but they dont understand it so it has no bearing on what limited thought process they have. Can they imagine themselves drinking guava juice out of their bottle while relaxig in the Bahamas? No, of course not. But they can have thoughts without the knowledge of language...which was the question right?
It started off that way...now I think my mind is changing more towards a concept of how much language is a part of our thoughts. I would have to break it down then, I believe, into two parts to really discuss this.

1) What is thought?

2) What is language?

But is body language an actual language?
Good question. I think we need to define language now.

ok, here is an interesting point though. most mammals have been observed to show the same basic brain activity durring sleep concurrent with dreaming. this, in my opinion, is excelent evidence that even newborns have subconcious thought.

I think this is an excellent point. In dreams people exhibit quite complex and creative thought patterns that seem to be largely free of language. Of course you can argue that everyone who's dreams we can know about knows some language, but that's not really a counter argument. All that shows is that the conclusion isn't 100% certain, and I'd like to hear some actual evidence for the oposite argument.

I think it's pretty obvious that thought, and even basic rational thought can exist without language. All animals and infants seem to be aware of basic cause and effect, if not at a very sophisticated level.

Complex rational thought may be essentially impossible without language though, but I'm not even sure that's always true. I think that even without language, humans are probably capable of some fairly complex geometrical reasoning, though I have no proof of that.

How is a non-linguistic thought possible? That we can translate languages does not demonstrate that thought can be non-linguistic, merely that languages have a similar logical form (it is argued that languages only have meaning on the basis of their form, not on the actual symbols). We can then learn and follow the rules of the different language.

If you wish to identify, in a chomskian way, the logic of thought with being a language, then the question does not get off the ground.
Language, as I understand it is a communication tool that has syntactical and semantic elements. There is no logical form to language beyond those imposed by the limits of our experience. i.e it is sequential in time, as we experience time sequentially.
Now these limitations on language of our experience also apply to thought. This does not mean though that these logical forms are causally related, it simply means that they both have the same cause.

To translate a complex and abstract idea, one does not simply swap the tokens in from another language. If this were the case then computer translation would be perfect, and it clearly is not. To translate correctly one grasps the idea that is expressed in one language and expresses this idea in another. To do this there has to be something about the idea that is non linguistic, to be grasped independently of the language. That this something has a similar logical form to a language, does not make it a language. Any more than mathematics is the same as logic (it is not). Rational thought has to have a logical form to be described as rational, language has to have a logical form to function, hence an association can be formed between the two, but this association is not one that is necessary in any way.

4 linguistic_process, language

the cognitive processes involved in producing and understanding linguistic communication; "he didn't have the language to express his feelings"
I think is puts it into words best

Well definitely Kudos to Sinuhue for giving us such a brain twisting topic! Exercise for the brain......excellent.

Wow, I looked up the definition of 'think'...it's huge! It seems like one of those concepts most difficult to put into words. I'll just put a few of the definitions here:

think
1 : to form or have in the mind
2 : to have as an intention <thought to return early>
3 a : to have as an opinion <think it's so> b : to regard as : CONSIDER <think the rule unfair>
4 a : to reflect on : PONDER <think the matter over> b : to determine by reflecting <think what to do next>
5 : to call to mind : REMEMBER <he never thinks to ask how we do>
6 : to devise by thinking -- usually used with up <thought up a plan to escape>
7 : to have as an expectation : ANTICIPATE <we didn't think we'd have any trouble>
8 a : to center one's thoughts on <talks and thinks business> b : to form a mental picture of
9 : to subject to the processes of logical thought <think things out>

So thinking is a mental activity. Is it purely intellectual, or can thinking also be emotional? If you FEEL love, is that thinking?

The definition of language is almost as complex:



Main Entry: lan•guage

1 a : the words, their pronunciation, and the methods of combining them used and understood by a community b (1) : audible, articulate, meaningful sound as produced by the action of the vocal organs (2) : a systematic means of communicating ideas or feelings by the use of conventionalized signs, sounds, gestures, or marks having understood meanings (3) : the suggestion by objects, actions, or conditions of associated ideas or feelings <language in their very gesture -- Shakespeare> (4) : the means by which animals communicate (5) : a formal system of signs and symbols (as FORTRAN or a calculus in logic) including rules for the formation and transformation of admissible expressions (6) : MACHINE LANGUAGE 1
2 a : form or manner of verbal expression; specifically : STYLE b : the vocabulary and phraseology belonging to an art or a department of knowledge

It appears that language is any method of communication that is UNDERSTOOD by someone else (even if that person who understands your language doesn't happen to be there at the time). It is social interaction and a way of communicating ideas via various methods.

4 linguistic_process, language

the cognitive processes involved in producing and understanding linguistic communication; "he didn't have the language to express his feelings"

I think is puts it into words best

More than a little oblique. "Language is a cognitive process involved in producing and using language to communicate" is what this says. A complete non starter.

The whole area of defining language and communication is fraught with pitfalls. The academics working in the subject area, communications, are still, after some fifty years arguing internally about what constitutes communications.

Language. A means of communicating a concept from one individual to another would seem to be a strating point

Thought? No Idea. If language was bad, this is Saddam Hussein.

Wow, I looked up the definition of 'think'...it's huge! It seems like one of those concepts most difficult to put into words. I'll just put a few of the definitions here:



So thinking is a mental activity. Is it purely intellectual, or can thinking also be emotional? If you FEEL love, is that thinking?

I know, I looked it up too and then it goes on and on with "thought" as well!

Love is probably felt in the brain. People say heart, but I think they really mean brain. I think the heart is an actual part in your brain that handles all of the emotional stuff. So by my line of thinking, I'd have to say feeling is thinking. But thinking isnt necessarily feeling. Do I make any sense? I can think about how much work I have sitting in front of me and start to feel sick. Then I can think about how much time I spend here on NS while at work and begin to feel guilty. But I can also think aboutthis yellow highlighter on my desk and not feel a darn thing!

The definition of language is almost as complex:



It appears that language is any method of communication that is UNDERSTOOD by someone else (even if that person who understands your language doesn't happen to be there at the time). It is social interaction and a way of communicating ideas via various methods.


makes sense...its a deep subject isnt it? If the mind could be duplicated into a machine...I'd love to see how it works, what goes on up there. Might frighten me a bit though.

So if I work from those two definitions, and I think that language is essential to thought (as in, language is needed to really develop thought), then I have to see if the various definitions of thought are possible WITHOUT language.

Think:
1 : to form or have in the mind
Can I do this without language? Certainly I can form images and feelings in my mind without expressing them or communicating them to someone.

2 : to have as an intention <thought to return early>
I can intend to eat an orange, and not have to think about it in words or communicate it to someone. If, however, I don't have an orange, or someone has one and I want it, I would have to communicate my need in some way. That doesn't affect the intent though, just the outcome.


3 a : to have as an opinion <think it's so> b : to regard as : CONSIDER <think the rule unfair>
I suppose I could feel bad if someone ate the orange and didn't share because I wasn't able to communicate my need to them. I could have this opinion without communicating it to myself or others.


4 a : to reflect on : PONDER <think the matter over> b : to determine by reflecting <think what to do next>
Here's where I run into problems. How well could I reflect over the unfairness of my situation at being orangeless without thought? Could my reflection go beyond vague feelings of unhappiness and hunger? I suppose I could think about how it would taste had I been able to eat that orange, and maybe I'd think about going to find one of my own? I think that is entirely possible.

5 : to call to mind : REMEMBER <he never thinks to ask how we do>
I could remember how the orange tasted and want to eat one to get that taste again. I could remember that you didn't share yours, and I wouldn't need to communicate to remember that.

6 : to devise by thinking -- usually used with up <thought up a plan to escape>
If primates can 'fish' ants, they obviously figured it out by forming a plan...or did they just stumble upon it by accident? Even if they did, doing it over and over again is a plan to get the ants...they are using something known to work in order to achieve their goal. I could beat you with a stick next time you have an orange to get it to eat...

7 : to have as an expectation : ANTICIPATE <we didn't think we'd have any trouble>
Dogs anticipate their food...I anticipate the orange...we can communicate this anticipation or not...it does not affect the anticipation itself, just the outcome.

8 a : to center one's thoughts on <talks and thinks business> b : to form a mental picture of
Mental pictures, I don't believe, need language to exist.

9 : to subject to the processes of logical thought <think things out>
This one is the hardest. I'm not sure how far you could get in a logical process without thought. Perhaps this is the only one I don't think could be done without thought.


I still feel somehow that language is integral to thought, but I'm having difficulties proving it, even to myself!

It appears that language is any method of communication that is UNDERSTOOD by someone else (even if that person who understands your language doesn't happen to be there at the time). It is social interaction and a way of communicating ideas via various methods.

So if I were to create a language and no one knew it but me, it would not be a language, by definition. Interesting. I wonder why the idea of intrapersonal communication (inner speech) was excluded by the person writing that definition of language.

So if I were to create a language and no one knew it but me, it would not be a language, by definition. Interesting. I wonder why the idea of intrapersonal communication (inner speech) was excluded by the person writing that definition of language.
Good point. I wonder if they left that to the realm of thought, not language? If you have thoughts, but are unable to express them in any way (body language, speech, so on), can those thoughts ever be considered communication?

Your communication with yourself is your thoughts. Your communication with others is your language?

Child development research shows us that the brain needs certain stimulation from an early age, or certain connections are never physically made. For example, a child that is raised in isolation, with little physical contact and never introduced to speech (Genie being the most famous examples http://www.feralchildren.com/en/showchild.php?ch=genie) is physically UNABLE to develop language to the extent that others her age have already developed.


Shhhh. Noam Chomsky will hear you. Then his fans will attack you.

Shhhh. Noam Chomsky will hear you. Then his fans will attack you.
Natch. Most Noam Chomsky fans don't know his linguistic work. Noam Chimpsky...hehehe, that still cracks me up.

Anyway I love him too...but even he doesn't think he's the be all end all of linguistic theories and politics...

So if I were to create a language and no one knew it but me, it would not be a language, by definition. Interesting. I wonder why the idea of intrapersonal communication (inner speech) was excluded by the person writing that definition of language.

I consider that the "someone else" and "social" are the problem.
It appears that language is any method of communication that is UNDERSTOOD by someone (even if that person who understands your language doesn't happen to be there at the time). It is interaction and a way of communicating ideas via various methods.
This allows for a private language.

Yes, you can have thought without language. However, your those would only be relative to what you see. So cavmen could feel sad or lonely but they would not be able to recognize what they're feeling. Pictographs were made of animals and women, and language wasn't created until a few thousand years after the paleolithic era.

I give up

*head explodes*

i think its possible to have thoughts /o language ad in an off ye some what related note i think people who think animals have no emotions have never had pets :(

I still feel somehow that language is integral to thought, but I'm having difficulties proving it, even to myself!

I think the key point here is that language is such an incredibly useful tool for thinking, that once you have it, you use it constantly throughout almost all your thinking. So language isn't essential for thought, but it IS essential for thinking the way most people do.

In other words, language isn't integral to thought in general, but it is integral to the sort of thought you do on a day to day basis. That's how I see it at least.

I give up

*head explodes*
Hehehehe...just wait until I go into a "how can something be infinite" thread!

i think its possible to have thoughts /o language ad in an off ye some what related note i think people who think animals have no emotions have never had pets :(
But do they have thoughts beyond emotion?

Hehehehe...just wait until I go into a "how can something be infinite" thread!
Nooooooo! Not today please. Next week. :(

Yes, you can have thought without language. However, your those would only be relative to what you see. So cavmen could feel sad or lonely but they would not be able to recognize what they're feeling. Pictographs were made of animals and women, and language wasn't created until a few thousand years after the paleolithic era.

I do not see that simply because you do not have a label for hunger, you do not know that you are hungry. The sensation is the same and recognisable. Thought processes can be derived from such sensations without linguistic intervention
*feel hungry* --> *imagine food* --> *go hunt* -->*eat* -->*feel good*
This is a non linguistic process, but clearly rational, ends driven thinking.

Hehehehe...just wait until I go into a "how can something be infinite" thread!

Have you seen the Big Bang thread?

I think the key point here is that language is such an incredibly useful tool for thinking, that once you have it, you use it constantly throughout almost all your thinking. So language isn't essential for thought, but it IS essential for thinking the way most people do.

In other words, language isn't integral to thought in general, but it is integral to the sort of thought you do on a day to day basis. That's how I see it at least.
It just seems to me there is some undefined point at which you can develop thought without language, before no more development is possible. I just don't know where that limit would be set...or if it could be, because it seems to me that at this point, language would be developed. Why then haven't other animals developed their language? For that matter, why haven't we continued to develop our own language, for surely there are things we can't express or think about properly with the language we have. Is it brain capacity? Is it something else? Are humans capable of developing a language beyond what we have already created, or is this OUR limit, much as the communication between apes seems to be THEIR limit?

Nooooooo! Not today please. Next week. :(
Yeah, I'll save it. I need my whole brain for that one, and right now, part of it is focused on this, and part of it is focused on my coffee.

Have you seen the Big Bang thread?
Seen, but not entered or participated...I think I'll save it for later...

But do they have thoughts beyond emotion?

Anecdotal evidence.

When I was a child we had a cat, called Tigger. Now he was a fairly bright cat, but at times a little absent minded. One day he was clipped by a car as he crossed the road in front of our house. This resulted in a broken leg, a lot of pain and several weeks healing. From that moment forwrd, whenever he wanted to cross a road he would stop an the kerb, look both directions several times, and run like mad whenever the road was clear.

To me this a clear case of abstract thinking. It is not that he avoided only one type of car, it is not that he only did this at that one point on the one road. It was any road, and any vehicle. Generalisation had ocurred.

Originally posted by AlienBorn
I do not see that simply because you do not have a label for hunger, you do not know that you are hungry. The sensation is the same and recognisable. Thought processes can be derived from such sensations without linguistic intervention
*feel hungry* --> *imagine food* --> *go hunt* -->*eat* -->*feel good*
This is a non linguistic process, but clearly rational, ends driven thinking.

Yes, you are right. However, many feelings are not straightforward: stress, lacking love, etc. We only can recognize those as feelings through careful consideration of what causes them and how they realte to feelings. This cannot occur without some kind of language. Depression would be interpreted as sadness. It would be difficult for one to differentiate their feeling of depression since it is relative in degrees.These types of feelings require evaluation, thus, language.

I can't express what I think about the subject with words. Think is a word. It isn't something tangible. It is a part of a language. There is no think in the brain. Just set of neurons and electric signals driving actions according to stimulus patterns. Some of those actions are to translate a pattern into a word written on a computer, or to translate a word read from the computer into a pattern.
The pattern related to the word "think" is different in different brains. Ask your dog if he thinks and he will just shout at you. Ask a human if he think and he will probably reply with a list of words which probably have no sense in reality. Ask me if I think with words and I will just type random words about neurons and the universe or something equally non-sensial.

So it seems that for most of us, our language is inadequate to fully express our thoughts. Does our language then need to evolve? Do we have the capacity for such evolution, or are we at our limits?

It just seems to me there is some undefined point at which you can develop thought without language, before no more development is possible. I just don't know where that limit would be set...or if it could be, because it seems to me that at this point, language would be developed. Why then haven't other animals developed their language? For that matter, why haven't we continued to develop our own language, for surely there are things we can't express or think about properly with the language we have. Is it brain capacity? Is it something else? Are humans capable of developing a language beyond what we have already created, or is this OUR limit, much as the communication between apes seems to be THEIR limit?

You're getting positively Orwellian now :D. Actually, though I think our language could be made much more efficient at expressing some complex concepts, all the human languages I know are capable of expressing bascially any logical possibility. Of course, some things are too complex to express in a easily comprehensible fashion, and that's where the limitations of our brain seem to come in.

As far as the limitations of our language go, I think those limitations mostly result from our not understanding something well enough to define it in a clear self consistent way. The question of the definition of 'thought' or 'language' makes a perfect example - we have some idea of what thought and language are, but those ideas are collections of charactersistics that may or may not be mutually consistent. As a result, it is more difficult to express ideas about thought and language in a clear way, because sometimes we appeal to one characteristic, and sometimes to another, and we may not be talking about the same thing both times.

Good point. I wonder if they left that to the realm of thought, not language? If you have thoughts, but are unable to express them in any way (body language, speech, so on), can those thoughts ever be considered communication?

You are able to express your thoughts by way of chemical interactions in your brain. The problem, at least in relation to the definition, is that it excludes the possibility of thought being language-based. Quite honestly, I think that's wrong, because my own thoughts are constructed using language. In fact, I have never encountered anyone who does not, in some form, use language to construct their thoughts. But perhaps that is because my own definition of language is so broad. :)

Your communication with yourself is your thoughts. Your communication with others is your language?

Not exactly, at least according to the theory of communication I was taught some time ago.

1. Your communication with yourself is intrapersonal communication. (This can occur in a variety of ways. Thoughts are one way. Another would by using your hand to make a series of taps on your leg, for example. Or showing yourself pictures to facilitate conceptual acquisition.)

2. Your communication with others is interpersonal communication. (It is dependent on a language of some sort, a set of agreed-upon symbols, whatever those might be. They could be images, colors, sounds, songs, pheromones, tactile sensations, or some combination of several of these.)

So it seems that for most of us, our language is inadequate to fully express our thoughts. Does our language then need to evolve? Do we have the capacity for such evolution, or are we at our limits?
Our language only need to evolve in relation to something. The question is "why". Expressing your thought would require that the receiving end of your thoughts is able to process it. In order to process your thoughts, it would require that the receiving end has your brain.

Yes, you are right. However, many feelings are not straightforward: stress, lacking love, etc. We only can recognize those as feelings through careful consideration of what causes them and how they realte to feelings. This cannot occur without some kind of language. Depression would be interpreted as sadness. It would be difficult for one to differentiate their feeling of depression since it is relative in degrees.These types of feelings require evaluation, thus, language.

I do not see how language helps with this. How is it possible for me to know that what I denominatew depression is the same feeling that others denominate with the same term. It does allow us to recognise different degrees of a feeling.
Peckish < Hungry < Ravenous < Starving
but it does not guarantee that we all have the scales calibrated the same way. When I say I am hungry, you may describe this same strength of sensation as peckish, hungry or ravenus. It would be possible to use starving, but this is less likely.
Nor in some cases is it even the same thing that we are measuring. (Jealousy and Envy being a god example here)

Language does allow us more sophistication in our thinking, but it also allows more confusion in communication as we try to communicate these finely differentiated concepts. And fail.

As far as the limitations of our language go, I think those limitations mostly result from our not understanding something well enough to define it in a clear self consistent way. The question of the definition of 'thought' or 'language' makes a perfect example - we have some idea of what thought and language are, but those ideas are collections of charactersistics that may or may not be mutually consistent. As a result, it is more difficult to express ideas about thought and language in a clear way, because sometimes we appeal to one characteristic, and sometimes to another, and we may not be talking about the same thing both times.
So, if we do not understand something well enough to define it, does talking about it (using language) help us to better understand that particular concept? I think it does. That would mean that language was having a more active part in the process of forming thoughts than it does at perhaps lower levels of thought (hunger, want, etc).

Thought can certainly exist without language. Consider the situation of describing a person. Perhaps their face appears in your mind. You are reminded of various personality traits - the way they laugh, the way they smile, the way they react to certain things. But then, you start to put this into words. Often times, there is a struggle to find the right words, the right adjectives, and so on. The more difficulty you have finding the right word, the clearer this argument becomes. The thought exists in the mind irrelevant of all other things, but communication requires the less precise filter of language to be applied.

Originally Posted by Sinuhue
But do they have thoughts beyond emotion?

If you're refering to animals, then I would say absolutely.

1. Your communication with yourself is intrapersonal communication. (This can occur in a variety of ways. Thoughts are one way. Another would by using your hand to make a series of taps on your leg, for example. Or showing yourself pictures to facilitate conceptual acquisition.)

2. Your communication with others is interpersonal communication. (It is dependent on a language of some sort, a set of agreed-upon symbols, whatever those might be. They could be images, colors, sounds, songs, pheromones, tactile sensations, or some combination of several of these.)

Well, here you're assentially defining thought to be a sort of language, which is fine, but I don't think very useful. With that broad a definition of language, there's not a while lot you can really say about it, and I personally prefer a more restrictive definition.

Besides, I suspect that most people think of language as being only defined by the second of the above definitions, and it's usually a bad idea to choose a definition that differs significantly from common usage.

I don't have any word in mind when I'm fucking a girl BTW. I just have her body in mind.

So, if we do not understand something well enough to define it, does talking about it (using language) help us to better understand that particular concept? I think it does. That would mean that language was having a more active part in the process of forming thoughts than it does at perhaps lower levels of thought (hunger, want, etc).

I agree entirely :D

So, if we do not understand something well enough to define it, does talking about it (using language) help us to better understand that particular concept? I think it does. That would mean that language was having a more active part in the process of forming thoughts than it does at perhaps lower levels of thought (hunger, want, etc).
I don't think there is higher and lower levels of thought. Or if there are, it is only because you invented them with words but they don't exist in reality. But then again that is only the result of what I say with my words and with my thoughts. It probably doesn't mean the same thing to you. Actually it probably doesn't mean anything. Oh and the only thing I know is that I know nothing. The only important thing is that it is fun.

Originally posted by Quorum
I do not see how language helps with this. How is it possible for me to know that what I denominatew depression is the same feeling that others denominate with the same term. It does allow us to recognise different degrees of a feeling.
Peckish < Hungry < Ravenous < Starving
but it does not guarantee that we all have the scales calibrated the same way. When I say I am hungry, you may describe this same strength of sensation as peckish, hungry or ravenus. It would be possible to use starving, but this is less likely.
Nor in some cases is it even the same thing that we are measuring. (Jealousy and Envy being a god example here)

Language does allow us more sophistication in our thinking, but it also allows more confusion in communication as we try to communicate these finely differentiated concepts. And fail.

It does not matter. We are talking about no language. In other words, we are talking about communication with no feeling. I can feel depressed but do I know I'm depressed? Not necessarily. Many people don't even know they're depressed. It is a higher degree of sadness. Cavemen could feel this, but they wouldn't recognize it unless they have a relative scale. When you have no language, you have no scale.

i think you can most certainly form thoughts, clear and cohesive ones at that, without language.
take an artist- they think in terms of light, color, shape. when asked to desribe the artistic value of the world around them , many have trouble doing so. however, they are able to translate their views quite clearly throught the media that they use.


does this make sense?

I have asked alice ( http://www.alicebot.org/ )

Human: Can you have thought without language?
ALICE: No I don't have it. But I do have a collection of gossip.

does this make sense?
Yup!

Originally posted by Occidio Multus
Does that make sense?

Yes, it does make sense however that is a language between artists.

Just in case you wondered BTW, I have asked

Human: Can you think?
ALICE: Naturally I am thinking all the time.

While language is not necessary to thought, as symbolic thought can be acheived, but I do not think that the vast bulk of animals have any form of symbolic thought. They can be conditioned, but conditioning is not necessarily thought.

I would suspect that the only other creatures with any sort (albeit very primitive) of thought would be some mammalian predators, and some of the primates. That's about it in my opinion.

Yes, it does make sense however that is a language between artists.

But what about when the artist visualizes a painting, but hasn't put it on a canvas yet? Is that still language? Personally I don't define it as such.

i think you can most certainly form thoughts, clear and cohesive ones at that, without language.
take an artist- they think in terms of light, color, shape. when asked to desribe the artistic value of the world around them , many have trouble doing so. however, they are able to translate their views quite clearly throught the media that they use.


does this make sense?
Human: does this make sense?
ALICE: Indeed this make sense does.

I'm starting to believe ALICE may have all your answers.
Maybe the best philosophers are computers?

Next question : can you have language without thoughts?
In other words : does ALICE think? (if you ask her, she says she does)
Do we, human, think?

Originally posted by Quorum

But what about when the artist visualizes a painting, but hasn't put it on a canvas yet? Is that still language? Personally I don't define it as such.

That is just like asking:

"Are my thoughts language if I haven't communicated them?"

The answer is no if you have thoughts but do not communicate them, you haven't used language. A canvas is just a medium as is language to verbal communication. Art is the communication vehicle that an artist uses. Language is the communication vehicle verbal communicators use.

Since we're on the subject of language here is a picture of my cat after he was awoken by the person taking the picture:
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y27/oksana1781/bennothecat.jpg

Not towards any postere in particular: Animals, primarily mammals, do have language. Here is an example of my cat using nonverbal communication. Nonverbal communication is respective to each and every individual language. Nonetheless, he uses this face all the time when he has been awoken by someone.

Can you have thought without language?

Clearly even animals are able to formulate thoughts, and surely before humans evolved speech we were able to communicate in other ways, so I believe the answer is yes.

However, what are the limits of thoughts that can be formed without language? Can they remain any more than nebulous, vague impression or mental pictures without even internal speech to focus and concentrate them? To what extent does speech actually help FORM our thoughts, as opposed to visa versa?

Consider, for example, your beliefs about something intangible like human nature. You may have an impression or a feeling about human nature, but does that constitute thought? Can you really THINK about human nature without verbalising (even internally)?
I imagine that the only sort of "thought" which can take place without language is of things which can be easily visualized. Some mathematicians I have known have told me that they sometimes think only in mathematical terms, but that has never been an option for me since I'm almost totaly mathematically illiterate. :)

I imagine that the only sort of "thought" which can take place without language is of things which can be easily visualized. Some mathematicians I have known have told me that they sometimes think only in mathematical terms, but that has never been an option for me since I'm almost totaly mathematically illiterate. :)
Then again, mathematics is a form of communication, essentially a language.

first off, my this thread grew while I was away...

ok, one overwhelming theme I saw was rational deductions and abstract application of those deductions - such as the example of the cat and the car. while this is true, I would like to argue a differant perspective. I say that true 'thought' comes not form our ability to rationalize, but but our abilities to be irrational. for instance, a computer can collect data and interprate it rationally to compute an answer. it filtered the data through internal processes to come out with the logical answer. human do the same thing. take a math problem. the person filters the numbers through the correct process to produce the logical result (consider human error to be similar to software corruptions) for the human, this is considered thinking, but not for the computer.

HOWEVER, the human has the capability to think irrationally. imagine someone lying in bed durring a storm. they hear a noise and see a shadow at the window. this could have the potential to scare the person into thinking there is something supernatural haunting them. even a situation as simple as a dog being afraid of the noise form a vaccume cleaner, or the emotions of jelousy or anger. my dogs, for instance, get very jelous when one is being petted and the other is not. my mother had a dog that destroyed its bed when they got a new puppy, just so the puppy could not use it. in my opinion, it is these irrational deductions that prove that we truely posess higher thinking.

Hmmm...the more advanced the being, the more irrational? :D
I suppose we have to define what we consider intelligence to be...we consider computers to be logical and able to compute incredible amounts of information, but we don't expect them to have humour or emotions. Are emotions our irrationality? Is emotional 'intelligence' as integral to our thoughts and language as rational 'intelligence'?

I would have to say that animals whom have language, such as mammals, can have irrational thoughts as well. However, in the case of cats, their language is roeign to us. In this case, animals use actions and behaviors they see humans use as well as communication through their own language to get their thoughs across.

So, we have yet to really define thought. We have a definition, but do you all agree with it? Does it exists separate from language, or only up to a certain 'level' of thought?

ok, one overwhelming theme I saw was rational deductions and abstract application of those deductions - such as the example of the cat and the car. while this is true, I would like to argue a differant perspective. I say that true 'thought' comes not form our ability to rationalize, but but our abilities to be irrational. for instance, a computer can collect data and interprate it rationally to compute an answer. it filtered the data through internal processes to come out with the logical answer. human do the same thing. take a math problem. the person filters the numbers through the correct process to produce the logical result (consider human error to be similar to software corruptions) for the human, this is considered thinking, but not for the computer.

You have an odd definition of rational. As far as I know, computers are incapable of being rational - for one thing, I don't believe computers are capable of deduction, which I've always believed is a central feature of rational thought.

As for a human doing a math problem - assuming you mean a computation and not a proof - I don't really think that qualifies as thought. They may be thinking when they decide that they need to do the calculation, but not during the calculation, at least if it's a familiar calculation. They probably had to think when they learned how to do the calculation, to try to understand how a certain series of operations produces a meaningful result, but the actual calculation doesn't qualify in my mind as thought.

You can't just equate irrational mental activity with thought. There's a reason we talk about someone's thinking being rational or irrational - both are still thought! Of course not all thought is rational, but saying it is all irrational is just silly.

So, we have yet to really define thought. We have a definition, but do you all agree with it? Does it exists separate from language, or only up to a certain 'level' of thought?

So I think one definite characteristic for thought is mental activity, but obviously that alone isn't enough.

People generally make a distinction between emotion and thought, and I think there is a valid, if not entirely clear cut distinction there. Obviously emotion and thought interact, sometimes very strongly, but I believe they aren't the same thing.

Another distinction, which I like to make is that I don't believe computers think (yet), and so I would like some way to exclude 'mindless' computation from our definition.

Are there any other characteristics people think 'thought' should have? Does anyone see a good way of defining it so that it has the properties listed above?

Well, does the mind actually have to be living tissue for one? Could a synthetic 'mind' also possess true thoughts? I kind of think thought has to be done by a living organism.

However, these living organisms don't necessarily have to be carbon-based (life on other planets?)...so defining a 'living' being from a 'non-living' being is problematic if the being was silicon based, for example.

Well, does the mind actually have to be living tissue for one? Could a synthetic 'mind' also possess true thoughts? I kind of think thought has to be done by a living organism.

However, these living organisms don't necessarily have to be carbon-based (life on other planets?)...so defining a 'living' being from a 'non-living' being is problematic if the being was silicon based, for example.

I like to think that one day we'll have Artificial Intelligence, but then I'm a believer in the 'Strong AI' claim. *shrug*

To elaborate a little, I think that if we ran into or created a being that had all the characteristics we normally expect of a thinking being, we may as well define it as such. Otherwise, our definition has to have a clause basically limiting thought to beings like us, which seems silly to me.

The only question then is if it is possible for a computer, or a life form very unlike us to have all these characteristics, and in principle at least, we have every reason to believe that the answer is yes. In practice, of course, we don't know if intelligences unlike us can develop naturally, or if it will be ever technically feasible to produce one ourselves.

As an optimist, I tend to believe that we'll manage it eventually.

That is just like asking:

"Are my thoughts language if I haven't communicated them?"

The answer is no if you have thoughts but do not communicate them, you haven't used language.

Do you never communicate with yourself? Have you never reminded yourself to perform a task, such as washing dishes or paying taxes or buying groceries? Do you never remonstrate with yourself for doing something stupid and say, "Damn, I shouldn't have done that"? :)

A canvas is just a medium as is language to verbal communication. Art is the communication vehicle that an artist uses. Language is the communication vehicle verbal communicators use.

Speech is the vehicle which verbal communicators use. Language, even in the more restrictive sense in which it is generally understood, includes image-based communication in which concepts are relayed through a series of hand signs, characters (numbers, letters, Japanese particles and words), shapes (triangles, squares, etc), or heiroglyphs. These are commonly called written language.

Definiton: the mental formulation a capable organism has in response to its environment that may be disassociated to an arbitrary system of communication on certain levels

Good? Not good? :)

Originally posted by Texanhotrodders
Do you never communicate with yourself? Have you never reminded yourself to perform a task, such as washing dishes or paying taxes or buying groceries? Do you never remonstrate with yourself for doing something stupid and say, "Damn, I shouldn't have done that"?

That's a contradiction though. You cannot do that unless you have a language. Therefore, if you do not have a language, you are not going to be able to do that. Saying those things in your mind is stil thoughts even if you have used language. :)

Well, here you're assentially defining thought to be a sort of language, which is fine, but I don't think very useful. With that broad a definition of language, there's not a while lot you can really say about it, and I personally prefer a more restrictive definition.

So you prefer concepts to be defined such that you can say more about them? What an interesting reason for preferring a particular definition. :)

Besides, I suspect that most people think of language as being only defined by the second of the above definitions,

Actually, most people primarily think of language in terms of two particular mechanisms, which are speech and writing (and maybe hand signs, or the tactile language for blind persons called braille). Most people don't consider pheromones to be a possible language.

and it's usually a bad idea to choose a definition that differs significantly from common usage.

Why? Perhaps because language functions based on common understanding? :D

Honestly, I'm not particularly concerned about my definition of language being different from the common definition because only in discussions such as this one does it become an issue. In these discussions, I enjoy my non-traditional definition of language. ;)

That's a contradiction though.

What is? What statement(s) did I make that were contradictory?

You cannot do that unless you have a language. Therefore, if you do not have a language, you are not going to be able to do that. Saying those things in your mind is stil thoughts even if you have used language. :)

Yeah, but how does that illustrate a contradiction?

Personally i believe language is not necessary for any kind of thought. im always trying to remember a word for some emotion or perspective and i can feel it in my head; what the word feels like when i say it and what it means. but i dont know what it is. The problem here is that i have a thought but no word to express it. Therefore i dont believe i think within the boundries of a language.

Originally posted by Texanhotrodders

What is? What statement(s) did I make that were contradictory?

Because my post that you were referring to was a response to a debate on whether an animal/person can have thought without language. In your example you have both, it has no relevancy to what I said, what so ever.

Because my post that you were referring to was a response to a debate on whether an animal/person can have thought without language. In your example you have both, it has no relevancy to what I said, what so ever.

Ah. I misunderstood your intent. My apologies. :)

Originally posted by Texanhotrodders
Ah. I misunderstood your intent. My apologies.

That's okay. I'm glad it was a misunderstanding. :)

You have an odd definition of rational. As far as I know, computers are incapable of being rational - for one thing, I don't believe computers are capable of deduction, which I've always believed is a central feature of rational thought.

As for a human doing a math problem - assuming you mean a computation and not a proof - I don't really think that qualifies as thought. They may be thinking when they decide that they need to do the calculation, but not during the calculation, at least if it's a familiar calculation. They probably had to think when they learned how to do the calculation, to try to understand how a certain series of operations produces a meaningful result, but the actual calculation doesn't qualify in my mind as thought.

You can't just equate irrational mental activity with thought. There's a reason we talk about someone's thinking being rational or irrational - both are still thought! Of course not all thought is rational, but saying it is all irrational is just silly.


I wasn't saying that irrationality is the pure basis of thought. I was saying that the capability to think irrationally as well is a nessisary component to a true thought process. allright, the math problem was a bad example, but I have a better one. CHESS! computers can play chess. this is a THINKING mans game, and computers play with the skills of a grandmaster. it plays with the same process as a human, analyzing every possible move trying to determine the best corse of action. they can even plan ahead and set traps and counter opposing strategys. computers programmed with an Artificial intelligence are capable of what most would technically define as rational thought, however, we do not usually like to term it as so. it is out irrational thoughts (deffinetly affected by emotions and desires) that put us truely ahead of the artifical intelligences out there today.

I would argue that thought can exist without language. language evolved from our desires to communicate our thoughts. OK, there is a passage form the hitchhikers guide that says civilizations go through three distinct stages; those of survival, inquiry, and sophistication, otherwhise known as the how, why, and where staged. the first is characterized by the question 'how shall we eat,' the second by 'why do we eat,' and the third by 'where shall we have lunch.' how does this relate? ok, I am saying that as we evolved and began developing language, we were able to build our communication skills beyond those of instinct. as our language became more advanced and we were better able to articulate our thoughts, we were also then able to take the thoughts of others and expand them.. this is what lead to 'higher thinking'

Originally Posted by Oksana
That is just like asking:

"Are my thoughts language if I haven't communicated them?"

The answer is no if you have thoughts but do not communicate them, you haven't used language.



Do you never communicate with yourself? Have you never reminded yourself to perform a task, such as washing dishes or paying taxes or buying groceries? Do you never remonstrate with yourself for doing something stupid and say, "Damn, I shouldn't have done that"?.


I would have to argue you are both right. have you ever thought of how someone form a foreign country thinks? in their native language? it is very difficult (for me anyway) to imagine thinking in another language. well, the same context would apply to someone never introduced to language. they might think entirely in image recolections and feelings, never actually verbalizing it to themselves. its an incredibly odd concept to grasp, and I am not entirely sure it makes sence...

I would have to argue you are both right. have you ever thought of how someone form a foreign country thinks? in their native language? it is very difficult (for me anyway) to imagine thinking in another language. well, the same context would apply to someone never introduced to language. they might think entirely in image recolections and feelings, never actually verbalizing it to themselves. its an incredibly odd concept to grasp, and I am not entirely sure it makes sence...
I don't think this works...I can imagine thinking in more than one language because I do so all the time. I could imagine thinking in any language, but I just may not possess the linguistic skills (yet) to do so. Do those without language even realise that there IS a language out there? Do animals realise that we are using language when we speak, and they just don't understand us, or do they think we are just making noise and communicating with them through body language?

I don't think this works...I can imagine thinking in more than one language because I do so all the time. I could imagine thinking in any language, but I just may not possess the linguistic skills (yet) to do so. Do those without language even realise that there IS a language out there? Do animals realise that we are using language when we speak, and they just don't understand us, or do they think we are just making noise and communicating with them through body language?

animals can understand language to differant degrees. the most basic example would be dogs learn their names. it has been theorised that some of the more intelligent breeds of dogs can have vocabularies (in the context of comprehension) in excess of something like 250 words. and, although you may argue that it is not the same, it pretty much is. they learn to associate a word with its respective object or action. many dogs know that when they hear the word leash, they get to go for a walk. I have a dog that knows the word cookie and will come running at its utterance (she is a fat little tank anyway - beagle and austrailian shephard mix. very strange looking dog, but adorable), parrots can mimmic sounds, as most people know, and can aquire huge vocabulries. and yes, they can learn to associate certain sounds they hear with certain actions. everyone has heard a parrot in the pet store greet customers upon entering. I remember hearing a story of a family that had a parrot. they then had a child, and the parrot observed that when the child cried, its parents would attend to it and feed it. picking up on this association, the parrot began mimmicing the sound of the baby crying when it was hungry or wanted attention.

Truly one of the great psychological and linguistic questions, a fantastic one to ponder!

Definiton: the mental formulation a capable organism has in response to its environment that may be disassociated to an arbitrary system of communication on certain levels

Good? Not good? :)
What does mental mean?
That is important because I believe it is the key word which defines if ALICE thinks or not.

Can you have thought without language?

Clearly even animals are able to formulate thoughts, and surely before humans evolved speech we were able to communicate in other ways, so I believe the answer is yes.

However, what are the limits of thoughts that can be formed without language? Can they remain any more than nebulous, vague impression or mental pictures without even internal speech to focus and concentrate them? To what extent does speech actually help FORM our thoughts, as opposed to visa versa?

Consider, for example, your beliefs about something intangible like human nature. You may have an impression or a feeling about human nature, but does that constitute thought? Can you really THINK about human nature without verbalising (even internally)?

It's odd. You can think of what your other senses percieve, but you can't have much rational thought.

Googling "thought without language" yields 600+ results. Quite a read, but interesting.