Is it possible to think without language?

I was thinking about this; is it because we are used to thinking in a certain way?

I mean I can figure out meters and kms much easier than miles, grams better than ounces; our abstract thought may be modulated by the training that language provides.

What do you think?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Certainly the language you use shapes (to some extent) the way you think.
I've often replied to a French person, in French , and then struggled temporarily to provide a translation for those who didn't understand the conversation - I used French idiomatically, and had to work at what I'd said to get it into English.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

agreed,

language could be seen to limit certain types of thinking or be restrictive, consider how a deaf person 'reads' someone compared to those who are not deaf. The 'quiet' mind (no voice chatting in their heads) may enable them to 'see' more that we miss.


IMO language is such a powerful and productive tool that it does undoubtably enable us to amass knowledge and understanding in a way we could not without it, increasing our functionality, but to think in terms of language all the time is slow. I am not sure speed reading is a good example, but for this, you do not need to read every word, you merely need to recognise the words in a block as one unit and understand the meaning of that block. I know that words are language but language in terms of speaking to self, one word after the other is not required to understand the written word...I'm not sure I am making sense with this? sorry I'm sure there's relevance there somewhere just not sure what it is.


Meanwhile consider all that information the brain never forgets but we apparrantly do (much like deleting something from MSword yet it remains forever stored on the hard drive- only accessible to the initiated few!..I think this is right......) meditation and the absence of language in your thought processes can enable you to access that forgotton information far better than if you sit 'talking to yourself' inside your head.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

ToR

I think I know what you are talking about. It's known as word recognition, I've read about it somewhere. I believe that there are 3 major theories about this:

1. shape- i.e. we recognise the shape of the word
2.simultaneous/parallel- we recognise letters close together simultaneously and formulate words from them
3. serial - we rrecognise the letters which come in a certain order as a word.

I don't know a lot about this but its worth exploring.

 

I know myself that I can understand blocks of text and I just assume this is speed reading, only if the words were unusually complex or unfamliar would I have to read word for word verbatum.

Me and Q once insulted each other by mixing up all the letters of 'teh wrods' (deliberate) but we understood each other alright!

I can read upside down too, useful for observing texts that people assume I can't see

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I think this is common though. (the reading upside down not spying on texts

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

)

 

http://www.mindtools.com/speedrd.html

interesting link on speed reading, it is about blocks apparrantly.

 

I remember The Science of the Discworld referring to that concept as 'extelligence' - being to clans, tribes and eventually civilisations what intelligence is to individuals. Extelligence started as oral, then written, then printed with the invention of the press, and now the Internet. Would the next step be an Internet with its own intelligence? Ni vidos...

I'm not sure how much Spanish would help, as it's a language quite close to English to start off with. An Asian, African or Native American language is more likely to provide novel ways to structure thoughts. (I would imagine)

New words and concepts you can learn without acquiring a new language - when studying a new area you'll pick up both new concepts, and 'jargon' that helps you deal with them.

So I'd suspect the main advantage to learning another language over merely learning more English jargon, would be understanding new grammars - and writing systems:

That thing about Mandarin speakers thinking about time vertically - isn't Chinese written vertically down? I suspect I think of time as left-to-right because of the strong association with reading English left-to-right.

 

Yes I think this is what is word recognition.

Yes I once read that if you keep the number of letters constant and just retain the first and last letter correctly, you can read wthout any problem whatsoever.

e.g.
Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at an Elingsh uinervtisy, it deosn’t mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht frist and lsat ltteer is at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae we do not raed ervey lteter by it slef but the wrod as a wlohe. ceehiro.

Isn't it great?

Methinks thou dost protest too much!!!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Oh this is fun!

Apparently the process of word recognition is easier with familiar and smaller words

e.g.

Recrsheears souhld csrncotut secntnees unisg olny wodrs edxcieneg terhe lttrees. Tihs wlil psoe seevral polrbems beaucse wwreell-ittn Esglinh sluohd nlurtaaly cointan mnay sorht wrdos iunidnlcg pvrn-eborses, gtienvie csaes, cncoeinvets and (howpos) penrpsoitois, aongmst many ohtres. Lnoegr wrods soluhd povre useufl when tteinsg tihs ieda. Fatiensnredg wdors dviorecd form hplfeul cnotext mhgit aslo mkae fnie cidenadats for (siht) iiulsocnn. Eelhapnt. Preorpritay. Mainargl. Avtrinmdatiise. Boyend. Caainnbl. Wree tsohe tcekriir tahn tpyical sentecens? Ppostecirve linigusts wlil find csnuotntrcig w-llromefed, ativce senetcens fere form tohse mnay hfepull sroht wrods raehtr dcffiuilt. Tihs txet semes edecnive eonguh of (carp) taht ponit. Neevretslhes, linigstus slohud sitrve twoards tihs gaol. Cvioncning sitedus msut searapte ecah slaml wdor’s cepvidnino-troxtg rloe form the (admn) sipecfic ieda taht praticular otparhghiroc tosntrianipsos gaurantee taht sesne wlil reiman eevn toughh itrnael snbairmclg occrus. Fanlily dleabielrty minlaaitpnug sacmrbled lteter order sohlud mkae tihngs eevn mroe duffiilct. Raeeedrs wlil fnid wdros wtih vbres or (fcuk) cooatsnnns aaenrrgd ceiuoesctlnvy mkae uiansmnrbclg mroe dcffliiut.

Can you read this easily?

 

I can read it easily, save for a few words which are very difficult.

 

How about a transcript?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

not easily no,
Researchers should construct sentances using only words exchanging three letters. This will pose several problems because well written English should naturally contain many short words including pvrn-eborses, gtienvie cases cncoeinvets and (howpos) prepositions, amongst many others. Longer words should prove more useful when testing this idea. Fatiensnredg words divorced from helpful context might aslo make fine cidenadats for (shit) iiulsocnn. Elephant. Propriatary. Marginal. Avtrinmdatiise. Beyond. Cannibal Were those trickier than typical sentances? Prospective linigusts wlil find constructing w-llromefed, active sentences free from those many helpful short words rather difficult. This text seems evidence enough of (crap) that point. Nevertheless, linguists should strive towards this goal. Convincing studies must sperarate each small word's cepvidnino-troxtg role from the (damn) specific idea that particular otparhghiroc tosntrianipsos gaurantee that senses will reimain even though internal snbairmclg occurs. Finally deliberately manipulating scrambled letter order should make things even more difficult. readers will find words with verbs or (fuck) constanants arranged consecutively make understanding more difficult.

This is what I can udnerstand without taxing my brain, the brain taxers I not taxed for purposes of appreciating the items of 'taxation'

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

ToR,

A bit.
And I've already explained why.
My first reaction was annoyance at what I saw as a completely unexpected tangent when you basically conceded that chimps were less intelligent than humans, but the intent of your words were basically that it wasn't fair to judge them as they were less intelligent than humans...
I still find that a strange tactic.
They are less intelligent than humans.
Period.

Then my annoyance amplified when you started becoming condescending to me. Accusing me of not doing my homework. Etc.

I can assure you, I've 'done my homework' on this topic. My life consists, to a major extent, in doing homework on this topic.

And then the way you insisted that I was wrong on the neocortex... muaha!!
Funny stuff. Really.

Anyway. I got a bit pissy.
However, don't take it too far. This medium is not one in which the degree of pissiness can be judged to its proper extent. I assure you that my pissiness could not be described in terms of 'a great deal'.

And you still haven't?
I'm wasting my time?

You equated chimps with 2 year old humans. This is an anthropomorphism. Just as I have said. The "animals are people too" thing was simply the way you seemed to be defending the chimps' pride. It doesn't really matter if the chimps neocortex is smaller than a human's. Why? Because the results are exactly as I had stated. That chimps are less intelligent than humans. That they are incapable of using tools to create tools. Which is an excellent example of abstract thinking.

This is a fallacy. As I've stated so many times.
I've explained where this comes from. The theory of mind. But that to extend it to far is to fall victim to anthropomorphism.

And this is utterly ridiculous.
You state quite clearly that chimps progress mentally until this progression STOPS at the age of 2. And then that the chimps will only ever have the relative intelligence of an average two year old.

This is WRONG! And obviously so.

Their mental progression may not occur as quickly as it did before. But it does not STOP. A 10 year old chimp is not the mental equal of 2 year old chimp is not the equal of a 2 year old human toddler.

I repeat. Do you know many 2 year old toddlers that are able to survive the wilds of the Congo?

The idea is WRONG.

Your popular references are wrong. As I mentioned, popular treatment of science is often distorted. Sometimes disgustingly so as in the case of equating chimps with 2 year old children.

It's called anthropomorphism.

And now you're going off on another completely different topic.
The definition of 'consciousness' has never been brought up. Although it is tied in intimately with the whole subject as is the definition of free will and self awareness.

But, one thing at a time.

That was my intent in coming in here, anyway.

To start out with some simple definitions and work from there.
That went well.

I'm going to just go ahead and come back in here with a regular post. Addressing everything I found interesting from post one to the end. It'll probably be ignored for being so long, but whatever.

No. The field of cognition is in its infancy and nothing is final. That's why this discussions such as this can take place in the philosophy section.

This doesn't mean that we can't have a fruitful discussion though.

I read your posts as insulting. You even edited out what I took as insulting so it would seem that you might have realized that it was a trifle insulting as well.

However, I don't believe I was too insulting. You were making a fool of yourself with the neocortex thing. Even going from your 'reference', it states that primates have the neocortex. Yet you said that only humans have it. Thus, the quickly googled facts.

Hmm.
I'm wondering to whom this is directed?
And I wonder how this might accord with your own copy pasting?

Tell me. Have you ever read Pinker?

Anyway.
A clue as to human intelligence.
Humans learn from this and that. We gather bits of knowledge from this source and that.
The intelligence comes from combining these disparate pieces of knowledge in our own way and producing something knew.

I.e. using tools to make new tools.

 

Invert don't flatter yourself, my post re people not having their own thoughts was not aimed at anyone on sciforums, I said 'pal'. ALSO my copy pastes are to attempt to confirm what I think I already know not a quick I 'pretend' I know. The absence of links would mean I'd immediately be rubbished as it is, the sources are rubished and me with them, but at least there were sources.

Re chimp thing you still think I was defending chimps. I was NOT I was making the point a 2yr old child thinks despite the fact they can't make tools to use to make tools!Kids think before they have a full grasp of language, babies think. This was my point. I couldn't give a toss about chimp intelligence or lack thereof. You mentioned chimps thus bringing them into a discussion re human thought and intelligence NOT ME.

You miss my points fine, We cannot discuss this topic. You enjoy engaging with more brilliant minds who know their subject. I'll bumble along trying to evolve my own thought process and maybe learn something from the posts of others.

Have a nice day.

 

Okay, I did a little better but there are some words I just could not get

Researchers should construct sentences using only words exchanging three letters. This will pose several problems because well written English should naturally contain many short words including verb-persons, gtienvie cases connectives and (whoops) prepositions, amongst many others. Longer words should prove more useful when testing this idea. Freestanding words divorced from helpful context might aslo make fine candidates for (shit) inclusion. Elephant. Propriatary. Marginal. Administrative. Beyond. Cannibal Were those trickier than typical sentances? Prospective linigusts wlil find constructing well-formed, active sentences free from those many helpful short words rather difficult. This text seems evidence enough of (crap) that point. Nevertheless, linguists should strive towards this goal. Convincing studies must sperarate each small word's cepvidnino-troxtg role from the (damn) specific idea that particular orthographic transpositions gaurantee that senses will reimain even though internal scrambling occurs. Finally deliberately manipulating scrambled letter order should make things even more difficult. readers will find words with verbs or (fuck) constanants arranged consecutively make understanding more difficult.

 

Your grasp and use of language though is vastly superior to mine, both in spelling and diction.

(Did you notice even though I recognised a word I still spelled it wrong in translation

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

) This shows word recognition as shape as oppose to letter combination I guess?

 

Probably because my algebra is below grade one level (compensation)

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Ok. If you say so.
Just seemed odd coming from nowhere like that. Seemed a bit passive aggressive. I'll accept your explanation though.

I don't have any problem with your copy and pasting. Not as it has been so far, anyway. I was just wondering how you thought about that when comparing that to what you just said about people just quoting others. That's all.

Hmm. So that's why you brought up the neocortex?


First.
The 2 year old doesn't have a full grasp of language. But he is beginning to go down the road of language. This is a point that has been made previously about Hellen Keller.

Second.
The two year old child IS using tools to make tools. This is how language acquisition works.

I'm sure some examples of tool use could be seen in the child's play as well. But, you are somewhat correct. Especially considering the theory of mind.

Need some time to come up with clear examples here. I'll come back to this one.

Obviously, I did.
It happens.
Took you long enough to actually explain your points more clearly.

Maybe. Maybe not.

I do miss that.
But, you'll do in a pinch.

I chased off my prey.
Drat!

I've got cooookies.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Here is an interesting paper on the science of word recognition:

http://www.microsoft.com/typography/ctfonts/WordRecognition.aspx

edit:can I have some cookies too?

 

No!

No cookies for you!!

(Not until I've chased you off too, that is.)