Is it possible to think without language?

Wow.

Not even merely seeing but being able to see.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Without language you cannot really think per se (complex thought), but you can feel. Once mental symbology is applied (in any format) to these feelings, thoughts may be generated.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

do they lead their prey into traps?
or do they just sit there like cobwebs?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think they release attractive chemicals. Do cobwebs release chemicals...?

 

leopold99, i fail to see your point. Perhaps if you could be more explicit?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

What are we defining language as at this point? Also if an venus flytrap relaeses attractive chemicals, then is it feasable that they may communicate, on a very low level, with such chemicals?

 

Right here is where you are swaying away from the fact. Think about it, what makes you feel a pinch? Skin cells are excited and send signals to affiliated nervous receptors, which in turn alarm you of of what's going on. For there to be any communication there has to be two or more entities working together, by this I mean one sending and one recieving- thats basically the essence of language, which also embodies protocols, i.e english, mathematics, numbers, symbols e.t.c. It is entirely impossible to generate thought without a form of communication. Thoughts are still pictures in the mind, and the mind is subject to the external enviroment, human babies will not make it if there was no external enviroment, and more imprtantly if there were no means to communicate with it.

 

Chatha you not arguing that you cannot think without language you are arguing semantics, you are calling the process of thought language, fine then we agree. The definition of language though as intended by the thread starter is as in grammatical verbal communication - English, Spanish, Japanese etc.

There is no requirement to have language skills (as defined above) to think non at all.

 

I wonder if being bilingual or multilingual would have an effect on the thought process

 

Only in that when they are using language to think they may think in one or both languages. Maybe a mix. My daughter has her own language as well as English, always coming out with made up words to represent what she is thinking. Hence I guess the origin of language, attempting to communicate what is already taking place in our minds.

 

Here is an interesting point of view that suggests that language may shape thought.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6303

Language may shape human thought – suggests a counting study in a Brazilian tribe whose language does not define numbers above two.

Hunter-gatherers from the Pirahã tribe, whose language only contains words for the numbers one and two, were unable to reliably tell the difference between four objects placed in a row and five in the same configuration, revealed the study.

Gordon says this is the first convincing evidence that a language lacking words for certain concepts could actually prevent speakers of the language from understanding those concepts.

However, scientists are far from a consensus. Feigenson points out that there could be other reasons, aside from pure language, why the Pirahã could not distinguish accurately for higher numbers including not being used to dealing with large numbers or set such tasks.

 

http://www.usingenglish.com/speaking-out/universal-grammar.html

"Jelle Zuidema's essay "The Origin of Language Debate" contains a discussion about the theories put forward by Noam Chomsky and Steven Pinker (who provided the basis for the now widely accepted classical theory on the origin and development of language skills), and those provided by Luc Steels and Brian MacWhinney who attempt to propose an alternative theory.

The Arguments of Steels and MacWhinney
The summary of the arguments provided by Steels and MacWhinney towards the Origin of Language debate are as follows:

1. there is no universal grammar
<- no universal grammar is found, universals result from cognitive and physical constraints
2. innateness is not self-evident
<- alternative explanations exist
3. there is no language organ
<- no grammar to be content of organ, language areas are also involved in other cognitive tasks
4. there are no language genes
<- there's no organ to code for, universal location emerges from selforganization
5. modern languages evolve similarily to their origins
<- language creation can be witnessed everyday
6. language emerged from cultural evolution
<- the same processes produce complexity elsewhere, simulating experiments show emergence of protolanguage
7. language emerged from embodiment
<- embodied cognitive processes shape language understanding

Some Comments on the Origin of Language debate
I find it hard to agree with many of the points made in the arguments listed above. There follows a disection of the given arguments:

Point 1 - There is no universal grammar
As a believer that language is the driving force of thought, I can't see the cognitive constraints as being separable from the notion of universal grammar. The basic concepts underlying language are unlikely to be the mere embodiments of concepts shared with non-linguistic animals. Can the notion of number be equated with what the hunter sees when approaching prey?

It is very unlikely that a universal grammar will be found and codified given its complexity, but this does not negate the concept.

Point 3 - There is no language organ
While the location and nature of the LAD (Language Acquisition Device) remain little understood or even identified, language is cerebral, so it is contained within one organ, the brain, about which we know very little.

Ponit 4 - There are no language genes

This is only true if number 3 is, which I find questionable. The fact that the human genome has been published does not mean that we have grasped how it all works, especially diachronically.

Point 5 - Modern languages evolve similarily to their origins

Language creation is not synonymous with creating an entire language. The fact that we can create new words or forms is not the same as the leap of thought that generated the first concepts.

Point 6 - Language emerged from cultural evolution

The two are so linked as to be simultaneous. Production of 'complexity' is not the proof that language can be forcibly 'evolved'.

Point 7 - Language emerged from embodiment

There is no consensus on the relationship between language and thought; I, like many others, believe the opposite of what is being argued here.

This does not sound worked out sufficiently to me.

The Bibliography given in the essay is as follows:


Pinker 1994 Steven Pinker, "The Language Instinct", 1994, New York: William Morrow

Williams 1951 F.C. Williams, T. Kilburn and G.C. Tootill, "Universal high-speed digial computers: a small-scale experimental machine", in: The proceedings of the institution of electrical engineers, vol. 98, part II, no. 61, February 1951

MacWhinney 1998a Brian MacWhinney, "An emergentist view on grammatical development" (abstract), in: 1998 AAAS Annual Meeting - Program Book

MacWhinney 1998b Brian MacWhinney, "The emergence of language", in: B. MacWhinney (ed.), The emergence of language, forthcoming, New Jersey: Erlbaum

Steels 1996 Luc Steels, "Synthesising the origins of language and meaning using co-evolution, self-organisation and level formation", in: J. Hurford (ed.), Evolution of Human Language, 1997, Edinburgh: E. University Press

Kosso 1995 Peter Kosso, "Reading the book of nature"

You can read the original essay here: Jelle Zuidema - The Origin of Language Debate



One Last Comment on Finite Language
While I believe language is finite, it is also inexhaustible. A Google search for language produced 33.9 million results. The search English language reduced it to 3.45 million results. Searching for the words together (ie: "English language") rather than anywhere in the text halved this figure and adding the took the score down to 737,000.

The falloff with such common words shows that finite language doesn't mean that there is any likelihood of reaching the end of language. The numbers are astronomical and incalculable, but that does not affect the theory. A bit like the comments above."

 

There's a very easy answer to that argument and quite simply it is, how did language evolve without thought. Meanwhile, there is no denying aquisition of a language is helpful. Re that tribe, I have seen a tribe with only two toes (the entire tribe) this is not evidence that the rest of the world should have only two toes. Vandoma tribe.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vadoma

 

Alright.
Time for me to dive in.
Once more into the breach.

Last things first.
(Actually first things first, but it's funny how things circle. Eh, Southstar?)

I disagree. I don't think the word 'language' was defined in the opening post any better than the other key word 'think'.
This is always the problem with these types of threads. And the problems always manifest in identical ways. Just as we have here.
You're defining language as you see fit. Chatha is defining it as he sees fit.
Same goes with thought. The concept is used in such a general fashion that it is taken to mean practically any form of mental activity whatsoever. Fine for the layman, but not for any application where precision is sought after.


Let me interject my definitions of thought and language here.

Thought is the tricky one. And one which I won't even claim to have a constructive or realistic definition for. However, I think that if the definition were taken in its loosest sense which Prince James seems to find acceptable (at least he seems to draw the line at Venus Flytraps...), then the opening question becomes so uninteresting as to be pointless. Of course mental activity is possible without thought. Derp.

However, I look at the question in an interesting sort of way. That is, one of precision (as much as possible in this complex field at this early date). And I think that the opening poster had such an interpretation in mind as well. After all, why bother with boring questions, yes?

Therefore, I find that the definition for thought should be stringently applied. I have toyed with the thought of introducing some sort of weakly conjectured categorization of types of thought just for the sake of discussion. Something along the lines of unconscious thought/conscious-objective thought/conscious-abstract thought. But, the tendency in such a case is to continue adding new categories infinitum. Visual thought. Emotive thought. Getting home from a drunk thought. Etc.
This is a goal of mine, but one which I am not yet ready to undertake.
But, the definition MUST be narrowed down for the question to become interesting.

There is an obvious difference in thought between animals and humans. In these discussions, it's generally settled upon that there's a sliding scale of intelligence that increases in complexity that reaches a pinnacle (for now) in humans. But there's always an agreement that humans are capable of a type of thought that is unlikely to take place in even the highest of this sliding scale beneath us.

Abstract thought.

A chimpanzee knows nothing of 'justice'. Man does. This is the difference. (Note: "Justice" is just an abstract concept taken at random.)

This is where I should place the stringent definition.
That thought which is capable of shedding ties with objective reality to such a degree that a term such as 'justice' can be elaborated upon.
This is my definition of thought.
(Note: 'Justice' is merely a verbal example. There are other examples of abstract conceptualization that would suffice that do not fall in the verbal realm.)

Arguments?



Next:
On language.

Language is really quite simple.
Language is a system of symbols that refers to objective reality at its base. But also (and more importantly in my opinion) self-refers to other symbols within the framework of symbols.
Language is a complex self-supporting network of symbols.



Now.
I expect an argument to be, right off the bat, "You've defined the problems so as to ensure the answer is that language and thought are one!"
And you're right.
But, I think that this is a far more interesting interpretation than the previously sloppily defined interpretations which have been kicked about so far.
The devil is in the details, you know.
The question, "Is thought possible without language?" is merely a pathway.
The road goes ever on and on.


I have much more to say. And, in fact, have written pages on this subject. But I think it's best to start slow.
Lest I chase off my prey.
Muaha!!

 

Here is more interesting stuff

Does language shape thought? Mandarin and English speakers' conceptions of time.


Does the language you speak affect how you think about the world? This question is taken up in three experiments. English and Mandarin talk about time differently--English predominantly talks about time as if it were horizontal, while Mandarin also commonly describes time as vertical. This difference between the two languages is reflected in the way their speakers think about time. In one study, Mandarin speakers tended to think about time vertically even when they were thinking for English (Mandarin speakers were faster to confirm that March comes earlier than April if they had just seen a vertical array of objects than if they had just seen a horizontal array, and the reverse was true for English speakers). Another study showed that the extent to which Mandarin-English bilinguals think about time vertically is related to how old they were when they first began to learn English. In another experiment native English speakers were taught to talk about time using vertical spatial terms in a way similar to Mandarin. On a subsequent test, this group of English speakers showed the same bias to think about time vertically as was observed with Mandarin speakers. It is concluded that (1) language is a powerful tool in shaping thought about abstract domains and (2) one's native language plays an important role in shaping habitual thought (e.g., how one tends to think about time) but does not entirely determine one's thinking in the strong Whorfian sense.

So language may determine abstract thiking more than discrete.
What do you think?

edit: invert_nexus was faster!

 

Invert

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

this is incorrect for starters:

"Language is really quite simple.
Language is a system of symbols that refers to objective reality at its base. But also (and more importantly in my opinion) self-refers to other symbols within the framework of symbols.
Language is a complex self-supporting network of symbols."

Language is considerably more complex than mere symbols.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language

"Properties of language
Languages are not just sets of symbols. They also often conform to a rough grammar, or system of rules, used to manipulate the symbols. While a set of symbols may be used for expression or communication, it is primitive and relatively unexpressive, because there are no clear or regular relationships between the symbols.

For example, imagine going on a walk with a person who only knows individual symbols. If you saw a dog, he might say, "Dog not scare" or "Not scare dog". Although any English speaker would have some notion of what he was talking about, the relationship between the words is unclear. Is he scared of dogs? Or just that dog? Or does he want to scare the dog off? Does he think the dog is scared? But if you respond, "I'm not scared of dogs", the relationship between "dog" and "scare" is quite apparent and hence the meaning of the utterance.

Another property of language is the arbitrariness of the symbols. Any symbol can be mapped onto any concept (or even onto one of the rules of the grammar). For instance, there is nothing about the Spanish word nada itself that forces Spanish speakers to use it to mean nothing. That is the meaning all Spanish speakers have memorized for that sound pattern. But for Croatian speakers nada means "hope"."



Additionally who said chimps do not understand justice? they understand warnings. They will repremand thier young for fooling around as will dogs, cats etc..with a 'cuff' as a warning. A dog who has knowingly done something wrong (eaten dads dinner) will skulk into a corner when dad walks into the kitchen as he 'knows' there is a repercussion for what he just did.

 

Sam re that how we think about time, time is something we are taught and so we will think whatever we are taught on that matter rightly or wrongly, without that teaching we may observe that the sun and moon rise and fall and make other observations re seasons etc, other than that we probably would not think about it at all. It is our civilised world that teaches us to 'mind' time.

 

Ok.
My bad.
I tend to take certain things for granted and the grammar and syntax and the rest of the rules are implied in the network I spoke of.

They're the space between the symbols.
The interconnections.

However, I can see how my analogy was too simple. I had actually written a much longer treatment, but decided for simplicity for starters... And I went too simple.


So.

We're in accord with the network of symbols (that refer to both objective reality and to themselves) along with the rules of grammar and syntax by which they are combined into meaningful constructs?

I do. I go out on a limb and say they don't understand the concept of justice.
They may have some crudely formed concepts of their own as they are on the higher end of that sliding scale I spoke of, but justice is above them.

What does this have to do with justice?

Alright.
Here's a simpler example.
Tool use.

We know that chimps use tools, yes?
But chimps don't use tools to make tools.
That's the difference.

This is exactly identical with the concept of justice. Chimps can have concepts that relate directly to objective reality, but they don't use those concepts to create higher order concepts.



Sam,

Do you have access to Science?

 

Invert you said:

"Alright.
Here's a simpler example.
Tool use.

We know that chimps use tools, yes?
But chimps don't use tools to make tools.
That's the difference."


Invert are you aware that the chimps brain is strictly limited in terms of its ability to learn new things and while they develop at the same rate as a human baby, this STOPS at age 2. thus every adult chimp will only ever have the relative intelligence of a very average 2 yr old child.

So do 2yr old humans use tools to make tools? Nooooooooo