Is it possible to think without language?

very interesting...how do we know the dolphins give each other names?
sound recognition, as in identifying ecah other with a unique sound? Very interesting. I wonder why they do this? Maybe its cos they all look alike

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Re the lack of innate ability in humans I did not know this was due to rate at which they are born. maybe its due to adaptability as we are required to have a greater learning capacity in order to learn how to adapt to different environments. I would suggest that our innate abilities are lost due to language and taught knowledge but study of ferral kids would prove this theory wrong, meanwhile on subject of ferral kids, where did we learn our humanity from?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

About dolphins and names (I'm sure you'll accept national geographic as a reliable source, but it had big response from other press): http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/05/060508_dolphins.html
Please point out if I have misuderstood or misrecalled something, it was some time ago and I'm willing to discuss that.

About innate knowlede: The idea is that we are born at a stage when other animals, including chimps, which are the closest to us, are still developing in the womb and they are born more ready to the environment they are born in.
We spend a long time with our mothers and rely on their protection for a lot longer than other animals.
A human born is unable to protect himself till the age of 12 or so (the age differs from place to place and there are survivalistic exceptions).
Because we are born earlier and not adapted to the environment we are born in, our parents adapt us and care for us, our brain still is as if in a womb after we are born and develops tremendously,
but in other animals that stage of the development really and literally happens in the womb of the mother.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It's more than that though, many sepcies are raised without parental support yet they know what to eat and how to find it, what prey to avoid, evasive maneuvers, how to build /seek shelter etc. Ferral children do whatever the animal they reside with is doing, they possess no innate knowledge re being human (bipedalism etc) thus inertesting as to why after so many yrs of evolution even bipedalism does not come to children unless observed, thus how did it arise in the first place. Who did we observe walking up right? Surely the way evolution works we would have tried walking upright and out of necessity we then evolved in a more upright state.

Anyway we are way off topic here, I will (or you can) begin a new thread on topic of innate knowledge. later though, in midst of tidying huge mess! Feel free to interrupt me!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

it's not possible to think without words because it's impossible to think without pictures. words are pictures.

 

So blind people cannot think?

 

meh, just ignore her
c7ityi_ is as irrational and unreasonable as some thing that is extremely irrational and unreasonable,
besides she's stupid and doesn't read the thread before commenting something that has already been proven wrong

 

Thanks

 

http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1437931

on topic of innateness and knowledge, an interesting read

 

Greetings all,

Don't have time right now to devote to a full treatment (I have several posts in mind, when I have time.) But, have been considering what it is that I am trying to say about abstract terms such as 'Justice'.

I think that my tool use analogy is relevant but perhaps not intuitive for those who don't study these matters as obsessively as I do.

So, I've come up with a few other examples.
Verbal-wise.

Let's take the word 'child'.
To identify a child objectively, one simply needs to understand the definition of the word 'child'. Then one can easily spot a child in a crowd of people (foregoing such conditions as dwarfism for the moment.)
The concept 'child' is easily identifiable by the senses.

Now.
Let's take the word 'mother'.
A group of people. Can you spot the mother in the group?
Humans can't without additional information, but perhaps animals can through heightened senses and pheremonal cues.

Wife.
Same as mother.

Widow?



Just something to think about.
I will return.

 

duh, of course they can, you don't need pictures or words to think, you just need some kind of sensory experience.

but i was just trying to help...

 

A small defense of C7ityi_:

Whereas I am no fan of C7's theories, and indeed I postulate that Crom laughs heartily at her routinely, I shall note that far from being simply a troll or a nuiscance, and point out that, far from being such, she actually contributes her in her own way some many interesting comments, and at the very least, presents a different viewpoint.

Ignoring her is folly, but so is responding to everything she says.

Although now I feel odd, considering I'd never defend her, considering her antipathy to Crom. But Crom loves valour and all it matters is that the one stood against the many. And if that doesn't suit him, then to Hell with him!

 

Well you seem confused. You contradicted your first post with your second.

Message received James.

 

Chatha:

"My revised opinion is that it may be possible to develop though without any language but its not going to make sense if you can't interpret it. "

You seem to forget that thought does not require conveyance to another in order to be thought. That is to say, a thought unconveyed is still a thought, not something less because it is not expressed to another. Moreover, one can demonstrate thought by the simple fact of understanding the cause and effect of what you speak. What is understanding but drawing mental connections betwixt events? The cunning of a predatory animal cannot be accounted for by reference to an almost mythical concept of "instinct", specifically when "instinct" could not drive the plannings and the on-the-spot decisions that are necessary for the succesful hunt. As anyone who has ever bounded after an animal can attest, it takes a great deal of foresight and split-second planning to capture said animal by hand. Why would it be any less for the wolf? Similarly, many animals communicate to one another! Non-vocal cues as well as non-language sounds are often used by animals to one another. Wolves have an entire language of dominance and submission, for instance.

"In fact this is a no brainer. Language is basiclally symbols that we interpret with our five senses, without this it is utterly impossible to formulate any sensible thought. "

You cannot think of a languageless image?

Avatar:

"Of course it is. If you can't, that doesn't mean nobody can.
We once here did a study and a comparison on how the members of sciforums thought, the processes and methodology of thought."

Where was this done?

Theoryofrelativity:

"But I am suggesting that memory storage is perhaps itself directly linked to language, without language would we be able to remember or would thought be of that moment only? Is this why many of us can only recall childhood thoughts from an age when we had some language comprehension and not before? "

Animals, having no language, clearly have memory. This would seem to refute this conception.

Avatar:

"hummm, other animals have memory, but, as far as we know, no language (with some curious exceptions). Also I can recall events just as visual occurances. I don't feel (that's as much as I can offer) that they are stored as language/text and then recited and recalled to visual, I see the picture or film in my brain, I don't notice any language involvement anywhere except where there was a conversation. "

Me, too.

Theoryofrelativity:

"Imagine how you would remember a thought without language? The thought would exist and then pass, how would you recall it? "

By a recollection of the image.

Theoryofrelativity:

"From what i know about animal brains (limited granted) is that are largely concerned with innate knowledge whereas we as humans have very little innate knowledge but a larger capacity for learning whcih they have in lesser degrees depending upon the species. "

What is this innate knowledge of which you speak?

Theoryofrelativity:

"It's more than that though, many sepcies are raised without parental support yet they know what to eat and how to find it, what prey to avoid, evasive maneuvers, how to build /seek shelter etc. Ferral children do whatever the animal they reside with is doing, they possess no innate knowledge re being human (bipedalism etc) thus inertesting as to why after so many yrs of evolution even bipedalism does not come to children unless observed, thus how did it arise in the first place. Who did we observe walking up right? Surely the way evolution works we would have tried walking upright and out of necessity we then evolved in a more upright state."

Could this not simply point to the immense intelligence of the creatures which have such attributes? A sea turtle being litterally able to figure out its way from birth, by virtue of its mental acuity?

 

It was a thread some years ago in, I think, phylosophy section. Sorry, don't remember the title, maybe you can start a new one.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Innate knowledge is inherited knowledge on genetic level.
The same sea turtles after being born know exactly how a shadow of a predatory bird looks like. If they see even a replica of such they hide, but not if it's in the form of something else.
Even after generations born in the zoo turtles still have this knowledge.
It's the same knowledge that a new born human child has. It knows exactly where the mother's breast is and what to do with it. It needs no instructions or guideance.
In humans this knowledge is very limited for the reasons already mentioned, it other animals it's a lot more dominant.
Some examples: species of spiders stick to one spider web design, species of ants know how to build a particular nest, etc.

I may be saying something wrong here, but it appears to me that many of the animals that demonstrate their knowledge don't have the intellectual capacity to do something like that in such a short while because their brains are primitive (ants, fish) and unable to compute on the level that would be required.
Another argument for innate is that they do no mistakes. They know exactly what to do, they don't figure it out. A 100% success rate with 100% similarity, it's not reasonable to assume that each individual figures that out independently and instantly.

 

Avatar:

"It was a thread some years ago in, I think, phylosophy section. Sorry, don't remember the title, maybe you can start a new one. "

Blast. I would have been interested in seeing it. But yes, I shall look for it perhaps sometime or consider doing something to test it.

"Innate knowledge is inherited knowledge on genetic level.
The same sea turtles after being born know exactly how a shadow of a predatory bird looks like. If they see even a replica of such they hide, but not if it's in the form of something else."

On the beach of their birth, do they react to other shadows as such? For perhaps they are simply fearful of what is present at all? Similarly, the shadow reaction could later be a result of conditioning following that.

"Even after generations born in the zoo turtles still have this knowledge.
It's the same knowledge that a new born human child has. It knows exactly where the mother's breast is and what to do with it. It needs no instructions or guideance."

Such things can result from pleasant smells and sensations, not necessarily "genetic knowledge". Similarly, could you tell me a bit more about these turtle responses to shadows? Do they experience any sort of predation-esque experience when being born in the zoo?

"In humans this knowledge is very limited for the reasons already mentioned, it other animals it's a lot more dominant.
Some examples: species of spiders stick to one spider web design, species of ants know how to build a particular nest, etc."

Such designs could also be quite apt to their lifestyle and circumstances, no?

"I may be saying something wrong here, but it appears to me that many of the animals that demonstrate their knowledge don't have the intellectual capacity to do something like that in such a short while because their brains are primitive (ants, fish) and unable to compute on the level that would be required."

http://www.bristol.ac.uk/news/2006/879.html - Ant's can teach eachother, apparently. Moreover, they are social creatures, and show signs of various communications, fantastic capacity to build and maintain an extensive nest, and relatives (termites, bees) are also tremendously intelligent. The famed "bee dance" comes to mind, as an explicit non-chemical means of communication, able to expressly convey specific thoughts regulated to the pattern. This implies the rudiments of language. Similarly, ants are actually ranked exceeedingly high in the brain-to-body ratio list.

That being said, the cunning of various animals of all types can indeed be signs of an intelligence geared exceedingly towards survival, and whilst differing from ours in that our intelligence has moved along different lines, we cannot rightfully say their processing power is significantly less than ours, nor so uncomplex as to not allow for a great deal of things on their part.

"Another argument for innate is that they do no mistakes. They know exactly what to do, they don't figure it out. A 100% success rate with 100% similarity, it's not reasonable to assume that each individual figures that out independently and instantly. "

Animals do not make mistakes? Clearly you have never seen animal trip, or fall from a branch, or do various other things.

 

Just start a new one. Members have changed and it would be interesting.

About the turtles, I have some material in one book and I will rewrite it here, but later, because I'm quite busy now.
And about innate knowledge, it really is worth starting a new thread on it, I will do it later this evening or night (depends on your time zone).

Just a quick response to mistakes: I didn't mean such mistakes, I ment spiders don't wave webs from trial and error, they are perfect from the start. I have never seen collapsed ant nests because they've made some design flaw or birds making such nests that accidentaly cripple their offspring due to bad design. It's as if the design is a part of the animal, of that species,
It's shaped by millions of years of evolution and is not invented by each animal from the start after birth.

 

Avatar:

"Just start a new one. Members have changed and it would be interesting."

Yes. It might prove quite useful.

"About the turtles, I have some material in one book and I will rewrite it here, but later, because I'm quite busy now.
And about innate knowledge, it really is worth starting a new thread on it, I will do it later this evening or night (depends on your time zone)."

Great on both issues. I look forward to it.

"Just a quick response to mistakes: I didn't mean such mistakes, I ment spiders don't wave webs from trial and error, they are perfect from the start. I have never seen collapsed ant nests because they've made some design flaw or birds making such nests that accidentaly cripple their offspring due to bad design. It's as if the design is a part of the animal, of that species,
It's shaped by millions of years of evolution and is not invented by each animal from the start after birth."

However, does not the fact that many spider webs are different individually from one another even in the same species sopmewhat undercut this? For if it is genetic, presumably the differences in individual design would not mandate such, no? NOr would genetic design allow for the necessary capacity to adapt the web to different anchorpoints and the like, would it? For I am certain you have seen spiders weaving a variety of different web structures on various things with only a tenuous connection to one another, have you not? Similarly, nest building, dam building, et cetera, do not seem such a flawless problem in that they do not suffer problems, only in that generally they are well built.

This being said, this could point to similarly the biological aspects of each animal and its brain development making him more likely to react in a similar way due to evolved and continuing-to-revolve around natural propensities. It seems that in most things we find a sort of "course of least resistance" philosophy, and even amongst humans do we find instances where people are more wont to react in different ways, deal with different things, et cetera, in line with their natural talents and inclinations, as well as bodily type and various other things. A football players, barring certain situations, in general has a football player's body, one could say.

 

Great reply and I will address the points you rose in the thread that I will make later.
You make valid points and my views in this topic have lots of place for improvement.

 

Thank you, Avatar, and do know that I am finding your posts equally as illuminating and thought provoking.

 

You are not looking hard enough. You really aren't. It is over such weak implementations of genetically predisposed designs that natural selection waves its magic wand. I don't spend a lot of time looking at ants, but I have seen any number of birds nest that failed because of material, location, timing, or construction technique.