Is it possible to think without language?

The human brain consists of not one but three brains, the reptlilian brain, the mamalian brain and the primate brain. THUS we do have an advantage over all other species, quite a considerable one, or two or rather three!

http://www.psycheducation.org/emotion/triune brain.htm


Our thought process is deffinately more complex and facilitated by language FOR THE SIMPLE REASON that language enables us to communicate and it is that communication that allows us to develop our knowledge. Without it we would be very instinctual and primitive. BUT primitive thinking beings.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes what do you need?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Theory,

Uh.

First.
There's no point in you defending the chimps being less intelligent than humans.
The fact is that they are less intelligent than humans.
You're going off on some kooky "animals are people too" that is completely off-topic...

Second.
I deny that chimps don't develop mentally after the age of 2. This is ridiculous.
And to compare a chimpanzee with a 2-year-old human child is an anthropomorphism.

Wrong.
The neocortex is shared by all mammals, dear.
And, the triune brain is, in many respects, merely another facet of the human need to categorize.

Still on your defending animal's pride or whatever?
You're getting ahead of yourself.

Let's stick with defnitions for the moment?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

seeing things? Where in what I said do I defend chimps? I am stating that the example you provided re tools was inadequate as they don't have the intelligence, nothing to do with language or whether they think or not.

meanwhile what I said re their level of intelligence is correct as per numerous studies, dolphins deemed the most intelligent mammal as having intelligence of 3yr old child.

And no, in none of my post did I say chimps were people, you mentioned them not me. You asked for debate to your example I provided it.

Re your 'kooky' comment is this how you respond to an opposing argument.

 

Sam,

Nothing. I'll dig up some articles for you to look at if you're interested.
The on one the Piraha was in Science. And another article on a different tribe with similar observations was in the same issue, if I recall correctly... I forget the name of the tribe.

Also, there was a recent article in the June 9 Science on the bilingual brain.

 

§outh§tar:

"thought is a change in mental image. in application, we might say that a person who sees the same thing in his head no matter what cannot/is not thinking visually. Note how this applies to the comatose, but not to one who is dreaming. This is consistent with the general distinction. Similar applications can be made to he who hears the same sound/no sound in his head continuously; he is not thinking auditorily. But when the mental image changes from 3 to 4 to 7 or from 'is 4723 a prime number' to 'yes (I'm making that up!)', we can see how that is thinking."

Sensory imagining in the mind does seem to be intimately linked to thought. This definition, at least in part, seems on the mark.

"The only objection to this I can think of is to ask whether sodium chloride mixed with pyloric acid results in a solution with a ph of 2 (I'm making that up too!). In this case, anyone without any clue whatsoever will hit a blank (ie. there is nothing to think about). The same thing with having to verify a proof of Fermat's last theorem etc. When there is no mental content to go over, the mental image does not change. It might change to an 'I don't know' (note how this is a verbalization of what is already an understood feeling) but there is no experience of the mental image going from something reviewed in an advanced chemistry book to a 'yes' or 'no'. This is a simple confirmation of what Hume remarked:

"Nothing is more free than the imagination of man; and though it cannot exceed that original stock of ideas furnished by the internal and external senses, it has unlimited power of mixing, compounding, separating, and dividing these ideas, in all the varieties of fiction and vision.""

This, too, also seems to be the case. However, if one imagined an experiment resulting from said scientific problem, one might be said to be thinking hypothetically about its result, and therefore thinking in response to it. But yes, this would be the time for sensory awareness propelled on by the thought to figure it out through experimentation.

"It seems only that we have been a little more vague in our own definition of thought about what this mixing, compounding, and separating is. I myself am hoping to bring in examples from neuroscience since science is something.. uhh.. unheard of in these forums of ours.

I once thought multiple personality disorder offered clues on the plasticity of consciousness but the current agreement, from what I've read, is that MPD is 'not real'. Maybe if someone knows more about that."

It depends on what you consider 'real' in psychology. Psychology is not a hard science nor medical field. It is malleable and based basically on institutional declaration. The American Psychiatric Association, for instance, is what categorizes what mental states are normal and abnormal, and have changed their minds on many issues, such as homosexuality, across the years.

But yes, relevant scientific knowledge on the matter is encouraged.

"Savants, from the little I remember, share a lot with 'normal' people actually. I read that a graduate student who practiced either calendar counting or multiplication tables (i forget) obsessively one day discovered that he was as proficient at it as even the savants! Someone pointed out that thinking in words is cumbersome and that certainly appears to be true. It's hasty to say practice alone, or even primarily, accounts for savant skills of course. But again, its difficult to get good data from savants since even people with 'regular' verbal skills have trouble articulating their thoughts. How can we expect savant test subjects to understand what we mean by 'thought'? "

As Absane has pointed out through his own experience that exclusively visual thinkers - which you are claiming savants might be, yes? - are fully capable of thought, but the process is different, owing to the visually-focused medium, than verbal thinkers, which most of us are predominated by. What say you in response to this?

Chatha:

Isn't it a bit much to consider language and communication betwixt neurons as one in the same?

sleeper555:

"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. "

Can you not imagine things in purely visual form which, once linked together, convey information to oneself without mental

samcdkey:

I am inclined to agree with the scientists who postulate that a lack of exposure to math for most of their life has reduced their capacity to understand concepts which are to us quite apparent. That is to say, it is so alien to them, as they apparently -never- deal with it.

It is, however, very interesting that we can teach apes to count, but not these humans.

Theoryofrelativity:

"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? "

I believe in recent years studies have shown that grammar is a universal behind language and thus this may be in question, yes.

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

I think there is fruit in the -concept- of grammar and what this may say about how we organize information and how we can organize information to be meaningful.

"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. "

They meant one specific location of the brain. They use organ here to refer to the "mini-organs" of the brain, like the hypothalamus, pineal gland, cerebellum, et cetera.

Fraggle Rocker:

Your point regarding people involved in the arts of various types, as well as "thinking in another language", were both quite intriguing. It also reminds me that for a long time I have wished to reach a point, preferably in a language I like (rather than for a brief time being stuck in Mandarin Chinese hanging onto my thoughts), I could think outside of English.

Theoryofrelativity

"There's a very easy answer to that argument and quite simply it is, how did language evolve without thought. "

I do believe Rousseau postulated that this was proof that God must have endowed man with language, in that he held that thought was impossible without language.

 

Invert

Oh and leave out the 'dear' it demonstrates your annoynace at debate which you invited. I reiterate I never mentioned animals, you did.

 

Sure. I like to read about everything!

 

I found the one on the Bilingual brain

 

Grrrr..
Lost a post.

#)(*%&)$(*%&W$)%*

Ok.
Back to square one.


First.
On the truine brain.

This is, I suppose, a huge problem when you just google up information and read it as fast as you can to get your post in before anyone else.
You're making a fool of yourself.

The triune brain is a model of the brain created by Paul Maclean in the 50's.
It consists of the archipallium brain (commonly referred to as the reptilian brain or the 'nose-brain'), the palleomammalian brain (the limbic system), and the neopallium brain (the neocortex).
Now.
Are you going to tell me that the neocortex exists only in humans?
Your link refers to it as the primate brain, which I've never heard used before, but nomenclature does change. Although it's rather misleading to refer to it as a primate brain seeing as how most mammals have one.

There is a difference between the human brain and our closest relatives though.
Know what it is?
The frontal lobe is enormously swollen in humans.
We also have an angular gyrus at the juncture of the parietal, temporal, and occipital lobes (which is conjectured to be a rather magical area in terms of cross-modality, that is blending of the three different brain functions into one. Language production is partially linked to this area (as well as multiple others)).

Know what's interesting about the frontal lobe, ToR?
It is an area of the brain that does not receive projections from the body. It deals only with the brain. It is a self-referenceing associational area.
And it's hugely swollen.
Does this raise any bells or whistles about the topic at hand? (And I don't mean animal pride.)


Heh.
From your link:

(hee hee. She even highlighted this section in further edit. She really thinks the neocortex is unique to primates... Heh.)

Anyway.
This indirectly states that cows don't have a neocortex.
Which is really, really dumb.
Here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=2435194&dopt=Abstract
Read that and tell me that cows don't have a neocortex.

Also.
Did you know that rats can do quite well with their neocortex removed surgically? (Quite well is quite relative, of course.) The process is called decortication:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=7217415&dopt=Abstract

So.
Please, ToR.
Don't come in here with your googled 'facts' trying to teach your grandmother to suck eggs, as the saying goes.
You're coming off quite foolish.

You're jumping all over the place.
Is this because of that 'visual thinking' of yours?

Can we settle the issue of definitions, please? Before you start making your peremptory statements about being thinking beings?

I must be seeing things, because you said something quite different the first time I replied to you. Oh well, such is the wonders of losing posts.

Here is a brief synopsis for you.

I stated that chimps are unable to think in abstract terms. I first used a verbal concept for an example. I then decided that a simpler and less contentious example would be one involving tool use.
You then turn around and say that it's not fair to judge chimpanzees because they're just two year old kids.

The point, ToR, is that they are less intelligent than humans and are unable to think in abstract terms such as is demonstrated in making tools with tools, and in understanding abstract concepts such as justice.

Your interjection of their neonatal status is completely off-topic. And unexpected.

Speaking of which...

What you deleted was something about how I didn't do my homework and that the comparison of chimpanzees to two year old children is old hat.
I responded (before the loss) that I had heard this saying. Quite often. On the discovery channel.
It's a metaphor. And a quite imprecise one. One which suffers from a huge anthropomorphism.

Are you going to honestly tell me that you know many two year old children that can survive the wilds of the congo?
Really?!

And are you really going to tell me that you believe that chimpanzees don't progress mentally beyond the age of two?
Really?!

Both ideas are instantly recognizable as ludicrous.

Let me give you a hint.
The analogy is meant mainly to cover the theory of mind.
That is, before the age of two, children don't seem to realize that you don't know what they know. The setup is as follows. The child is shown a puppet show. Two puppets. One leaves a toy on the couch of the stage. Then exits stage left. The other puppet then takes the toy and hides it. The other puppet comes back. The researcher then asks the children where the returning puppet will look for his toy.
Until the age of two (approx.) the children respond that he will go look where the other puppet hid it.

But, to carry this idea beyond its context is... completely ridiculous.
A chimpanzee is not a two year old child no matter how much you might like to think it is.

I said 'kooky' for the simple fact that I was surprised that you responded to my post by basically saying it's not fair to judge chimps because they don't have our brain...
That was basically my point to begin with, that they're less intelligent, and then you bring in this completely different facet of almost political correctness. Something akin to the Great Ape project.

So, if I hurt your feelings, then I apologize.
But, seriously, you're responses so far have been less than... hopeful.

 

And, damnit, if this is the way things are gonna go, then I should have just went ahead and posted my full damn rambling post instead of trying to start simply with definitions!!!

Well. There's always Southstar to have a fruitful conversation with.

 

Is it possible to think without language?
Absolutely. Babies do it all the time.

 

Oh No....
Truthseeker returns with an allusion to his thread that likewise suffered from poor defintions....


Muaha!!!!!!

You suck, Truthy.
Kiss your wife for me.

 

So what I get from the posts so far is that we have the capacity for abstraction and this capacity can be modulated by language.

In other words, we use language to define concepts which lead to more complicated conceptual thinking.

So would people who are multilingual have greater capacity for conceptual thinking, especially if they started at an early age, or would multiple languages complicate the process and make it slower?

 

She's in the hospital...

 

Tor,

Sam,

Ah. I spoke too soon. I hope I didn't offend by only mentioning Southstar in the list of hopefuls... (some list, eh?)

Actually, I hadn't even gotten that far.
But, you've divined the direction towards which I was rowing.

'Define' is somewhat ill-defined... (<--- Get it?) but I suppose it will work.
Did you not my use of 'distill' in that other thread which I haven't found the time to return to as of yet?

But. Basically. Yes.
It's as my example of tool use.
Chimpanzees are able to use tools. This isn't even a rarity in the animal kingdom. It has been shown that animals high and low are now known to use tools to some extent.

But, to pick up a rock to hammer open a nut is one thing. To use that rock to shape another rock to use as a hand axe is something else entirely.

It's seperated from the objective roots of the process by a degree. It's become an abstract.

The same thing happens with language.
Here. A quote from Wittgenstein who is quoting Augustine:

"When they (my elders) named some object, and accordingly moved towards something, I saw this and I grasped that the thing was called by the sound they uttered when they meant to point it out. Their intention was shewn by their bodily movements, as it were the natural language of all peoples: the expression of he face, the play of the eyes, the movement of other parts of the body, and the tone of voice which expresses our state of mind in seeking, having, rejecting, or avoiding something. Thus, as I heard words repeatedly used in their proper places in various sentences, I gruadulaly learnt to understand what objects they signified; and after I had trained my mouth to form these signs, I used them to express my own desires."​

This is a rather common sense application of language acquisition.
And a faulty one (common sense is often quite ill-informed.)

It completely forgets the extra-special aspect of language. Not that symbols refer to reality. But that symbols refer to symbols.
It's a bootstrapping process.

A is for Apple.

To J is for Justice.

Now this, I'm afraid I can't answer.
I am, sadly, monolingual... A great shame, I know. But I discovered the importance of language to mind far too late in life. I do speak a smattering of spanish, but not enough to consider myself bilingual.

My intuition does tell me that they would have a greater store of tools with which to combine concepts to achieve greater abstraction.

However, one needs to be careful. Because abstraction is a wonderful thing, but it can go too far.

I have a response primed for one of Chatha's posts about pattern seeking and the asylum being that schizophrenia is marked by a far too obsessive compulsion to seek patterns.

Our blessing can be a curse.

We walk a fine line.
The human animal has the tendency to go insane, something which few animals have the luxury of.

 

Take a look at Switzerland for the answer...

4 official languages...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland

I heard children learn at least 3 languages at school, since an early age...

 

What'd you do? Break her arm because your shirts weren't white enough? You brute!!
Heh. (Sorry to hear. Hope everything is ok.)


And. To everyone else who posted in this thread.
I wanted to start small and therefore haven't responded to the posts that have gone prior to mine although I have spent time writing responses and contemplating further responses, I'll see how this 'simple start' goes and will most likely revert to my usual rambling entry of days past.

Your contributions have not gone unseen or uncontemplated.

 

And...

Tor,

Rereading my post, I see that I got a bit pissy. Perhaps pissier than I should have. I will say that part of what pissed me off was that thing about me not doing my homework in the post you edited. But, you did edit that out, so I guess I should get over that.

I won't go back and edit my post as it's most likely too late now anyway.

But, I will extend a hand of peace and perhaps we can carry on equitably?


The fact is that you're wrong about the neocortex. This is indisputable.

You're also wrong in carrying the analogy of chimps not progressing beyond a two year old child. Chimps are not humans. Humans are not chimps. However, perhaps you don't spend as much time researching this subject and have been taken in by the popular treatment that is readily available on the discovery channel and whatnot.

I don't mean to insult you by this, it's just how it is. The popular treatment of science is often distorted quite a bit. Sometimes disgustingly so as in the case of teaching that chimpanzees are basically two year old children...


On the other hand, I was wrong in assuming the implicity of grammar and syntax in the symbolic network and am indebted to you for bringing this out so early in the game. If it had waited til later to be mentioned things would likely have gotten stickier. Here I am talking about the necessity of definitions and I fuck up something so basic as that.



So.
I apologize for being a pissy bastard.

Think we can have a productive conversation now?

 

I must have missed this.

Layers within layers.

Would this be like a progress of a concept from concrete to operational? Where symbols combine to form a structure in the cognitive process?

Or is that simplistic?

Yes; it seems a limited definition considering that blindness or deafness would not affect cognitive development, may in fact lead to enhanced capacity to abstraction due to the necessity to compensate for the missing sense.

Perceptual versus Operational?

Yes that is true. The brain would need to have the capacity to assess, comprehend and access the symbol for that particular concept in that particular language as compared to the same concept in other languages and keep them separate and together at the same time.

I think that's where the age at which you learn the language might make a difference. The capacity to read and speak the language would be less advanced than the capacity to think in it, wouldn't it?

But surely the entire thought process is one of seeking or creating patterns?

There may be other, functional reasons for schizophrenia.

I have not thought about insanity as a conceptual dysfunction, more as a systemic or genetic one. But its an interesting concept.