Can We Think Without Language? [Archive]

BoulderHead

May25-04, 11:15 PM

the 19th century German Philosopher Wilhelm von Humboldt claimed that language was directly connected to thinking

that people around the world should actually think differently due to their native language
I wonder if he had any direct observational evidence to support his claim. Personally, I think he was mistaken, as I have known people who thought in different languages than myself, yet never noticed anything out of the ordinary (quite the opposite, in fact). Expressing thoughts in another language can come across seemingly queer (sideways is how I sometimes think it). There are words, even meanings of words, which may be absent from one language to another but generally there seems to be a way to arrive at similar conclusions, so I think they way humans think is similar. Culture can skew outcomes, but I think the process leading to those outcomes is basically the same.

…perhaps we can take this one step further into the science of Chorology
which is the relationship between thought and native environment

is our thinking shaped by our native language and native environment?

does the average person in China experience the same thought processes as the average person in Sweden?

does the average person who has grown up in a city surrounded by water such as Stockholm think in the same way as a person who has grown up in a dessert such as Saudi Arabia?
I would be cautious not to mix what I see as apples and oranges (cultural differences vs thinking processes). That’s my 2-cents, for what it’s worth.

Janitor

May25-04, 11:23 PM

I agree that it is specific. I think that the relative rarity of the situation may have to do with why there isn't an English word for it. But for me at least, it is an intense feeling when it does happen, the kind of feeling that leaves an 'aftertaste' for quite some time, if I can put it that way. It was particularly gratifying when it was my mother admonishing my brother for something I had done. I always carried with me a mental list of wrongs I had received at the hands of that little creep :tongue2: so on the rare occasion that I found myself overhearing that sort of thing happening, I was gratified in a way that the word "giddy" comes close to describing, though "giddy" covers a broader range of situations than what I am talking about. Giddiness mixed with a mostly-suppressed feeling of guilt maybe is closer to describing the feeling, along with a touch of dread that he would convince Mom that it was actually I who had done it. But if we just had a single word for it, like "globbly" to make one up on the spot, that would be dandy.

energia

May25-04, 11:57 PM

BoulderHead

May26-04, 12:07 AM

Energia,
Since Janitor did not detail how such an event came to pass, it's possible a prank was pulled on someone and a feeling of glee is experienced. I suspect he meant more the way you accepted it though. Still, combined with guilt might also be some sense of relief or other combination of emotion, dunno.

Janitor

May26-04, 01:43 AM

Boulderhead, what I had in mind are situations that were not at all pre-planned to get anybody in trouble, if that is what you mean.

Thanks for doing the legwork, Energia. And yet... None of those synonyms really quite nails down the feeling I am thinking of.

Here is an example: When I was about 9 there was a family that lived across the street for a couple of years. They had a son about two years younger than I was. He had been playing with his tricycle out in the driveway in front of their house. I was too big to fit on the tricycle, but for some reason I held on to the handlebar with one of my hands and made it roll around a bit on the driveway, while my friend was engrossed in something else in the front yard. Then he called me over to where he was. Within minutes his father came out of the house and got in his VW Beetle to go somewhere. As it happens, I had left the tricycle right behind the back bumper of the VW, and the boy's father realized that when the back of his vehicle tipped over the trike and made the trike scrape on the concrete driveway. The man got out of his car and worked the trike out from underneath the car, and then walked over to where we were in the yard. He was all red in the face as I recall, and he said in an angry tone, "Danny! How many times have I told you not to leave things behind the car?"

So my friend got all the blame, and could not put up a believable defense for himself. I knew full well that I was the culprit. I also knew that the right thing to do was to speak up and take the wrath upon myself to get Danny off the hook. But I stood there stone-faced and did nothing. My feelling was more of a mixture of things than the word "guilt" or any of the synonyms for that word can convey.

kcballer21

May26-04, 04:01 PM

the 19th century German Philosopher Wilhelm von Humboldt claimed that language was directly connected to thinking
I've often wondered if two people were able to communicate telepathically, how would they do it? Would they send images of words to each other, or would they transmit actual ideas? It seems unnecessary to have to send your "voice" to another person when communicating telepathically, afterall words are just a representation of our ideas, and usually a crude representation at that.

energia

May26-04, 06:58 PM

So my friend got all the blame, and could not put up a believable defense for himself. I knew full well that I was the culprit. I also knew that the right thing to do was to speak up and take the wrath upon myself to get Danny off the hook. But I stood there stone-faced and did nothing. My feelling was more of a mixture of things than the word "guilt" or any of the synonyms for that word can convey.

I think that many people (children and adults) have had such an experience

now that you've made the situation more clear, I can't seem to think of a single suitable word to fully describe this feeling

BoulderHead

May26-04, 07:06 PM

Perhaps something approaching a paralyzing state of shock ?

mikesvenson

Jun3-04, 02:04 AM

autism----> thinking in pictures does not require words.
art-------> a visual idea manifested physically without words as in a sketch.

Nicomachus

Jun4-04, 09:34 AM

Janitor

Jun5-04, 12:05 AM

When I was about 13 years old I tied a chunk of cheddar cheese to a thread, and then tacked the thread to the ceiling of the family living room, such that the cheese was suspended four feet above the floor. I let our hound dog into the house. In a few minutes he went into the room where the cheese was. He picked up the scent, and sniffed around the floor looking for it. After a couple of minutes of such futility he raised his head and sniffed again. Within seconds he looked up just above his head and saw the cheese there, and happy as a clam he raised himself up on hind legs to snag it with his teeth.

Even if you claim that dogs have a language consisting of barks, growls, yelps and wimpers, I don't think you can reasonably claim that dog language can convey the sort of thoughts that had to be processed by our dog in figuring out how to procure his cheesy reward. It is clear to me that he was thinking in a way that his language was completely inadequate to convey. I have to say, if a dog can think non-linguistically, surely humans can too.

mikesvenson

Jun5-04, 01:46 AM

All languages are not oral or written people. Let's think this through and while we think this through why don't we try to think about this without using language. Good luck to everyone. While it may be possible to cognize without language I highly doubt it. Nothing any of you have presented has disproven Humboldt's assertion.
*Nico

i think in pictures most of the time, then i choose wether or not to convey verbally with language my idea to a friend. this is a very normal thing for me (thinking without mentally talking to myself). I hope im not missunderstanding the point here. for example, im a skateboarder, i visualize a trick i want to do, then i visualize myself doing the trick, then i go out and learn it. Thinking in words is far from necesary in all of this process.(unless ofcourse if i wish to describe my achievement to a friend!)

Evo

Jun6-04, 02:12 AM

Växan

Jun6-04, 08:30 PM

of course humans and other animals are capable of visualising objects and events as graphic images (except those who are born blind)

but are they capable of complex analysis (abstract thought) without language?

can the blind think without language?

is mathematics possible without numbers?

can a mathematician process numbers without converting the abstract image of a numeral into a word representing a quantity?

as an experiment take a stopwatch and see how long you can think about the environment around you without a single word entering your mind

Evo

Jun6-04, 09:47 PM

of course humans and other animals are capable of visualising objects and events as graphic images (except those who are born blind) Those born deaf have never heard language. When you think, you hear yourself say words in your mind, it would be different for them. Those born deaf and blind have neither, yet they still are capable of thinking.

but are they capable of complex analysis (abstract thought) without language?That would probably be a better question. Someone deaf & blind would have much more difficulty attaining a higher level of education.

Because we have language, it is difficult for us to imagine anything without it. But to say that the language you speak affects behavior is a bit "out there". I believe that it is not the language but the culture in which you are raised.

Dissident Dan

Jun7-04, 02:21 AM

Those born deaf have never heard language. When you think, you hear yourself say words in your mind, it would be different for them. Those born deaf and blind have neither, yet they still are capable of thinking.

In recent years, I have been thinking with the voice more and more to the point that it has become an addiction, and I want to sometimes voice my thoughts out loud just for the hell of it. I sometimes miss times when I thought predominantly without the voice.

confutatis

Jun7-04, 09:30 AM

"Language" is not a well-defined concept, so those kinds of questions are tricky. "Language" can be used to describe something as sophisticated as "upper-class British English" or as simplistic as "Fortran". It's really hard to see much in common between the speech of an English aristocrat and a few lines of code in a computer program, except perhaps for the fact that both are collections of symbols.

I think a better way to approach the issue of thought vs. language is to ask instead, "is it possible to think about something that cannot be communicated with language"? And to that question I think the answer is clearly "no". And that makes thought perfectly isomorphic with language - not the same thing, but exhibiting the same fundamental properties.

Evo

Jun7-04, 02:45 PM

I think a better way to approach the issue of thought vs. language is to ask instead, "is it possible to think about something that cannot be communicated with language"? And to that question I think the answer is clearly "no". And that makes thought perfectly isomorphic with language - not the same thing, but exhibiting the same fundamental properties.Language can't always acurately describe things though. Language is also subject to interpretation by the person listening or reading. I can think of many things that I would never be able to accurately describe, it could be an object or a feeling, so I don't use language when I think of these things.

Picture something imaginary in your mind. Do you just see it or are you using words to describe it to yourself? I just see it...no words. Therefore language is not necessary for thought.

Kerrie

Jun7-04, 03:28 PM

i use a lot of pictures in my thinking to envision an idea or plan all the time. words in my thinking are used mainly when i need to convey a specific message (such as when I am conveying my ideas to PF). mikes said that autism is thinking with pictures, but is that really true? i use pictures all the time as i am highly involved with creative projects that require pictures in my head to become real.

evo~"Language can't always acurately describe things though. Language is also subject to interpretation by the person listening or reading. I can think of many things that I would never be able to accurately describe, it could be an object or a feeling, so I don't use language when I think of these things."

Ironic that you stated this in such a clear and concise manner. :)

confutatis

Jun7-04, 04:25 PM

Language can't always acurately describe things though.

That does not mean you can't arbitrarily assign words to anything you think about. Whether other people can understand the meaning of the words you use is beside the point.

I can think of many things that I would never be able to accurately describe, it could be an object or a feeling, so I don't use language when I think of these things.

And I'm sure you can give names to every one of those things you can't accurately describe. I can think of a feeling I had last Saturday at 9:12AM and call it "cosmic reevaluation of primordial essentials", and even though you would have no clue what I'm talking about, the meaning of the expression would be as clear in my mind as the feeling itself. In fact, those philosophy boards are filled with people who make up undecipherable expressions which they think should make as much sense to everyone as it does to them...

Picture something imaginary in your mind. Do you just see it or are you using words to describe it to yourself?

I see it, and I can use words to describe it to myself. The former does not exclude the latter.

language is not necessary for thought.

Language is to thought what a shadow is to an object. The object exists independently of its shadow, and the shadow cannot exist without the object, but there is no object which does not create a shadow when illuminated. To argue against the isomorphism between thought and language is akin to claiming that one can see invisible objects - nonsense by definition.

BoulderHead

Jun7-04, 10:11 PM

And I'm sure you can give names to every one of those things you can't accurately describe.
What would be the point assigning a name when clearly whatever name she chose to give it would neither enrich her own understanding or have meaning to anyone else???
After all, she did say that “I can think of many things that I would never be able to accurately describe, it could be an object or a feeling,…”.
…I can think of a feeling I had last Saturday at 9:12AM and call it "cosmic reevaluation of primordial essentials", and even though you would have no clue what I'm talking about, the meaning of the expression would be as clear in my mind as the feeling itself.
That appears good for you, but of what use is it to anyone (yourself included)?
In fact, those philosophy boards are filled with people who make up undecipherable expressions which they think should make as much sense to everyone as it does to them...
But this is truely meaninglessness for, as stated, the expressions are undecipherable and going further still those doing the uttering seem even to be self-deluded into believing others can understand. There is no point I can see why you should be suggesting anyone undertake such folly, yet that does appear to be what you recommend.

BoulderHead

Jun7-04, 10:44 PM

To demonstrate a lone example, there is a feeling I experience when listening to the ambient, downtempo, music of Jose Padillo (in this case the track: Come back) which I cannot name. Were you, dear reader, to listen this music while putting yourself into this, or a similar, photo;

http://fp.superunknown.plus.com/images/cafedelmar_sunset2.jpg

…you might begin only to glimpse what I feel. To truly understand, and how I wish such a thing were possible, you would have to have shared much of my life and experience. It is more complicated than a name or mere words could describe, yet it is very real, even alive. I find in the isolation of our individuality that we are all alone, together. Words can help, but they are not the answer.

Janitor

Jun7-04, 11:05 PM

"is it possible to think about something that cannot be communicated with language"?- confutatis

I am thinking right now about the taste and smell of a sizzling hamburger, fresh off the grille, with onions, mustard, ketchup and lettuce on it. I can do quite well at bringing the sensation to mind. But if asked to describe it in words, I can't come close to doing it justice. Maybe that just shows the inadequacies of my own personal verbal skills, I don't know.

mikesvenson

Jun8-04, 01:52 AM

first came thought, then came language (verbal expression of thought). Therefore, language isnt necessary for thought, cause if it where, it would have came first. Think before speak = speak not necessary for think.

Gelsamel Epsilon

Jun8-04, 02:29 AM

the 19th century German Philosopher Wilhelm von Humboldt claimed that language was directly connected to thinking

that people around the world should actually think differently due to their native language

the American linguist Benjamin Lee Whorf based his (Whorf-Hypothesis)
on the idea that thoughts are controlled or influenced by the language we speak.

perhaps we can take this one step further into the science of Chorology
which is the relationship between thought and native environment

is our thinking shaped by our native language and native environment?

does the average person in China experience the same thought processes as the average person in Sweden?

does the average person who has grown up in a city surrounded by water such as Stockholm think in the same way as a person who has grown up in a dessert such as Saudi Arabia?

An interesting thought (ha ha :-/ ). Well one thing, when i think ( especially when saying things to myself or working out equations) i "think to myself in english" i know a bit of french and a tiny bit of indonesian but i dont know enough to translate. I think (again) it would be possible to think(:-/) without having a language but i couldn't imagine (again :-/) it.

What about those people who talk with that machine that says the things for them, dont they use their minds to make the machine talk? if so what if they are deaf as well and use that since they were born? would they be able to think to make the machine say things? like just think(this is a bit repetitive isn't it?) of an "apple" (which he wouldn't reeally know what is called) and it would say apple for him?

I dono since i havn't studied those machines :-/.....Anyway.......

confutatis

Jun8-04, 09:23 AM

What would be the point assigning a name when clearly whatever name she chose to give it would neither enrich her own understanding or have meaning to anyone else?

How should I know? All I said is that a name can be given; whether it makes sense to do it or not is beside the point.

After all, she did say that “I can think of many things that I would never be able to accurately describe, it could be an object or a feeling,…”.

I was trying to point out that being able to describe a thing to somebody else has nothing to do with our ability to name things. The former is extremely limited, the latter has no limits at all.

That appears good for you, but of what use is it to anyone (yourself included)?

It's not "good for me", it's just a fact. Whether it's useful or not is beside the point. What use is the blueness of the sky? Are we going to ignore the fact that the sky is blue just because it makes no difference?

this is truely meaninglessness for, as stated, the expressions are undecipherable and going further still those doing the uttering seem even to be self-deluded into believing others can understand.

If they are giving names to real phenomena, then they can be understood; it's just a matter of finding others who have a similar level of education and have experienced the same thing. For instance, someone with a good musical education and experience can perfectly understand what "modulation to the dominant major" means; to someone without that education, the sentence is undecipherable.

There is no point I can see why you should be suggesting anyone undertake such folly, yet that does appear to be what you recommend.

I always find it funny when people seem to overreact to the suggestion that language is far more important in their lives than they realize. It's specially ironic considering people spend something like 90% of their waking time either talking to other people or, more often, verbalizing thoughts in their inner voice.

BoulderHead

Jun8-04, 01:43 PM

BoulderHead;
There is no point I can see why you should be suggesting anyone undertake such folly, yet that does appear to be what you recommend.

Confutatis;
I always find it funny when people seem to overreact to the suggestion that language is far more important in their lives than they realize. It's specially ironic considering people spend something like 90% of their waking time either talking to other people or, more often, verbalizing thoughts in their inner voice.
But who is overreacting here?
It seems you have an issue with what you see as people overreacting… You’re right, that is funny! :biggrin:
Why not address my point next time rather than ignoring it to go off on a tangential tirade? After all, it can be seen in your own statement above that 10% remains unaccounted for. I understand you wish to minimize that 10% further still, but I’ll save that for later in this post, so for now let me recap;

Evo stated; “Language can't always accurately describe” and that there are many things she personally wouldn’t be able to accurately describe using same. I happen to agree with her statement, but how did you address her point? By informing the reader; “That does not mean you can't arbitrarily assign words to anything you think about.” This is where I come in to note that your comment has absolutely no relation to hers whatsoever and in fact doesn’t help in any way that I am able to see because you yourself even admitted; “Whether other people can understand the meaning of the words you use is beside the point”. Well, it's true that your statement was beside her point, but as we shall see it isn't beside your own despite repeatedly having asserted statements to the effect that; “Whether it's useful or not is beside the point”.

Your last post does in fact reveal something of interest;
How should I know? All I said is that a name can be given; whether it makes sense to do it or not is beside the point.
Here you confess again the significance of assigning a name is lost to you (you only note it can be done). But in the next passage we dig deeper into your true feelings;
…If they are giving names to real phenomena, then they can be understood; it's just a matter of finding others who have a similar level of education and have experienced the same thing.
Question; Define “real phenomena”
Does it include personal feelings that members have maintained language cannot accurately describe? :smile:
I understand from this that in fact you do see a point in the naming, despite having repeatedly professed ignorance of any utility. It seems clear you actually hold a view that understanding is possible between human beings, given the conditions outlined. So, in summary, your actual position seems contrary to some of the statements you have made.

Dissident Dan

Jun9-04, 12:46 AM

confutatis

Jun9-04, 12:11 PM

I understand from this that in fact you do see a point in the naming, despite having repeatedly professed ignorance of any utility.

I didn't profess ignorance of the utility, I was just trying to make the point that whether you can communicate an experience has no bearing whatsoever on whether you can come up with a name for it. You certainly can't communicate it before you give it a name, so naming must necessarily come before communication. Your position amounts to putting the cart before the hors: let's give names only to things we can communicate. Exactly how do you know you can communicate an idea before you give it a name?

It seems clear you actually hold a view that understanding is possible between human beings, given the conditions outlined.

Wait... I'm not the one coming up with examples of things that supposedly cannot be communicated! It is ironic, even pathetic, to see people say things like "it's impossible to describe the experience of watching the sun set behind the Rocky Mountains on an October afternoon", as if there is more to be described than words can describe. That is nonsense. There is certainly more to our experiences than can be described, but those things by definition cannot be described!

So, in summary, your actual position seems contrary to some of the statements you have made.

You think there's a contradiction in my idea because you can't see the real contradiction. And the real contradiction is the notion that subjective aspects of our experience cannot be communicated. Since language itself is a completely subjective experience, the notion would imply that knowledge of a language cannot be communicated. Which is obviously nonsense.

confutatis

Jun9-04, 12:19 PM

Can you tell me what it feels like when you masturbate?

Of course I can tell you how it feels! What's your point?

BoulderHead

Jun9-04, 12:34 PM

I didn't profess ignorance of the utility,…
This is absolutely an untrue statement. I do not know how you expect to be believed on this matter in consideration of the following exchange that took place between us;

Originally Posted by BoulderHead;
What would be the point assigning a name when clearly whatever name she chose to give it would neither enrich her own understanding or have meaning to anyone else?

Origianally Posted by Confutatis;
How should I know? All I said is that a name can be given; whether it makes sense to do it or not is beside the point.
Looking at the meat of the matter I ask “what would be the point…” to which you reply with “How should I know?” I would suggest that if you don’t see any point to the naming that you are equally unable to see any utility.

I’ll get around to the rest of your post by and by, because it misses the mark too, but thought this particular matter needed to be set straight immediately if we are to have any meaningful debate.

Dissident Dan

Jun9-04, 12:39 PM

Of course I can tell you how it feels! What's your point?

Then proceed to describe the feeling, if you can....or any other feeling, if that particular example makes you uncomfortable.

confutatis

Jun9-04, 12:56 PM

Then proceed to describe the feeling, if you can

Honestly, why do this? Are you trying to say I can't describe it? Of course I can, all I have to do is write some words. Do I have to actually write the words to prove you that I can write them? It sounds too childish to me.

Stop beating around the bush and go straight to the argument; supposedly we're smart enough to do that without engaging in childish games.

confutatis

Jun9-04, 03:21 PM

Looking at the meat of the matter I ask “what would be the point…” to which you reply with “How should I know?” I would suggest that if you don’t see any point to the naming that you are equally unable to see any utility.

I hate to engage in those "what you said there doesn't fit with the rest of your argument" kind of debate, but I'll give you a chance.

The reason I said "how should I know?" was simply because I have no idea why you would give a particular name to a particular thing. It doesn't mean I can't think of possible reasons why someone would do it. It's as if you ask me, "why is that man running?", I would just as well reply, "how should I know?". It could be because he's late for an appointment; it could be because he's trying to lose weight, it could be because he is trying to catch a bus... it could be a million things!

I’ll get around to the rest of your post by and by, because it misses the mark too, but thought this particular matter needed to be set straight immediately if we are to have any meaningful debate.

If it's going to be about literary criticism, please spare yourself the trouble. For now I'm busy writing an essay on the ineffability of the experience of masturbation.

BoulderHead

Jun9-04, 03:39 PM

I hate to engage in those "what you said there doesn't fit with the rest of your argument" kind of debate, but I'll give you a chance.
Nice try, but that is not what I’m attempting to do at all. I was merely pointing out the falsity of your statement.

The reason I said "how should I know?" was simply because I have no idea why you would give a particular name to a particular thing…
Clever attempt at misdirection, Confutatis, but it doesn’t wash. My question wasn’t about assigning a particular name but, rather, why bother assigning a name at all.
If it's going to be about literary criticism, please spare yourself the trouble. For now I'm busy writing an essay on the ineffability of the experience of masturbation
I’m am left doubting your sincerity.

confutatis

Jun9-04, 04:32 PM

My question wasn’t about assigning a particular name but, rather, why bother assigning a name at all.

"Why bother" is a pointless question. If you accept the fact that anything you think about can be given a name, then I can tell you what I think is relevant about it. If you keep insisting that fact is irrelevant, then we have nothing to discuss.

BoulderHead

Jun9-04, 06:51 PM

"Why bother" is a pointless question. If you accept the fact that anything you think about can be given a name, then I can tell you what I think is relevant about it. If you keep insisting that fact is irrelevant, then we have nothing to discuss.
This is an even less clever attempt to avoid directly addressing my complaint than your last misdirection was. You see, I was in the first place only inquiring into the relevance of assigning a name to something which even you yourself acknowledged might not be understandable by another living soul. I have never denied or attempted to deny, as your comment might lead to believe, that a name could be applied. I have merely asked you time and time and time again to provide a reason for doing so. Now here you are, finally, offering to show the relevance as if it had never been asked of you, and the offer even comes coupled with the notion that we may have nothing left to discuss. Astounding !
The part about my first having to agree with you before you'll expain yourself I'll try to ignore. Also, I read again my comment about not being able to name that feeling I had when listening to that song. This was a poor choice of words and may have given the wrong impression. What I should have said was that I didn't know how to express it verbally. Obviously I could assign an arbitrary name but never saw the need to do so as it would neither help my understanding or enable me to convey to another what is in my mind. So, I appologize for my poor terminology with respect to that as certainly I did not express myself as properly as I should have.

So, I am now going to simply note you have been evasive and unwilling to accept responsibility for your own spoken words, while at the same time hoping this behavior will cease.

Now, let’s get down to the brass tacks, beginning with your first post;

I think a better way to approach the issue of thought vs. language is to ask instead, "is it possible to think about something that cannot be communicated with language"?
The problem I have with this is twofold; in the first instance it sheds scant light on whether people who speak different languages actually think differently (remind me to reread the post by Nichomacus and apply the contents therein to my own self, btw). Secondly, and to address what this thread has digressed into, being able to assign a name to something has no bearing whatsoever on the proposition that people may be able to perform a thinking process without the use of language. It has already been stated that thinking about certain nameless things has been done, hence the irrelevance. In short, so far as I can determine, you offer nothing but a Red Herring for consumption.
…And to that question I think the answer is clearly "no".
Think whatever you want, I merely note that support was not offered for this assertion.
…And that makes thought perfectly isomorphic with language - not the same thing, but exhibiting the same fundamental properties.
Here, I view the use of the word “perfect” as hyperbole. Language may perform its duty by expressing conceptions in either a single word or string(s) of words but the word(s) can, and quite often do, convey a different meaning from person to person.

Finally, if you take a good hard look at the bold text you may at last come to understand what my questioning you has been about. Hope that helps.

[edit]
For grammer and additional comments in red.

BoulderHead

Jun10-04, 12:45 AM

Confutatis,
I’ve been rereading this thread over and this is what I’m seeing;

In post #24, you make the statement you do not believe it is possible to think about something that cannot be communicated with language.

In post #25, Evo responds saying language is imperfect in accurately describing what we would wish to communicate.

In post #27, you respond to Evo saying “That does not mean you can't arbitrarily assign words to anything you think about. Whether other people can understand the meaning of the words you use is beside the point.”

Do you see the problem?
What you have said can be meaningful if there is some reason for saying it, otherwise there is no point. You might just as well be stating that it is possible to squint one eye while scratching your head. Now, since your statement claims the ability of others to understand these arbitrarily assigned words as being “beside the point” then it is only reasonable to conclude that communicating to others isn’t a consideration. Ergo; if communicating to others is beside the point, the point becomes unclear. This is why;

In post #28, I ask you to explain the point in undertaking such an exercise.

In post #33, you respond saying “How should I know? All I said is that a name can be given; whether it makes sense to do it or not is beside the point.”

Now, what kind of response is that? :yuck:
It begins to look, at this point in the conversation, as if there was no reason behind post #27. I suppose I could just squint one eye and scratch my head since, after all, it is possible to do so.

In post #34, I ask again for you to address the issue.

In post #36, you deny having said what you said in post #33 stating “I didn't profess ignorance of the utility”.

In post #42, well, that was simply ridiculous and unhelpful. :grumpy:

In post #43, I’m informed my question is pointless. Interestingly, you also claim to hold something deemed relevant to my questioning, but I don’t get to hear what it is until I agree with you. :biggrin:

I’m going to close this post by suggesting you heed your own advise given to DD;
Stop beating around the bush and go straight to the argument; supposedly we're smart enough to do that without engaging in childish games.

Now, if you can do anything to clear this matter up consider me all ears. :smile:

confutatis

Jun10-04, 10:59 AM

Now, if you can do anything to clear this matter up consider me all ears.

I'm sorry but, as I said, I don't engage in those "you said this, you said that, nah nah nah nah nah nah..." kinds of discussions. I think it's too low.

Have fun

BoulderHead

Jun10-04, 11:21 AM

I'm sorry but, as I said, I don't engage in those "you said this, you said that, nah nah nah nah nah nah..." kinds of discussions. I think it's too low.

Have fun
You act like a poorly mannered child. I have presented my question to you several times in an honest attempt to have it answered. You merely respond with insulting comments.

Grow up, little child !

[edit]
What a silly excuse to avoid a perfectly reasonable question !

confutatis

Jun10-04, 01:57 PM

I have presented my question to you several times in an honest attempt to have it answered. [/COLOR]

I'm sorry to sound pedantic, but these forums are filled with people from all walks of life. In a single thread you may get sexagenarian PhDs having arguments with adolescents who barely finished high-school, without realizing their difficulties in communication result from their vastly different education and life experience. It's a truly bad thing about the internet that one can hide one's lack of qualification behind anonymity.

I do not think you are qualified to engage in this debate at a level I can enjoy. I won't elaborate on my argument for you because to me clearly it would be a waste of time; it would add as much to my enjoyment of this discussion as writing a dissertation on the pleasures of sexual self-gratification. So I won't do either.

Hope you don't take it personally.

BoulderHead

Jun10-04, 02:24 PM

I'm sorry to sound pedantic, but these forums are filled with people from all walks of life. In a single thread you may get sexagenarian PhDs having arguments with adolescents who barely finished high-school, without realizing their difficulties in communication result from their vastly different education and life experience. It's a truly bad thing about the internet that one can hide one's lack of qualification behind anonymity.
No, it’s not a bad thing if one is committed to taking time to explain their position (isn’t that what communicating is all about). Anyway, I don’t think the Internet is hiding anything...

I do not think you are qualified to engage in this debate at a level I can enjoy. I won't elaborate on my argument for you because to me clearly it would be a waste of time; it would add as much to my enjoyment of this discussion as writing a dissertation on the pleasures of sexual self-gratification. So I won't do either.
With all due respect, not a single word you have said addresses the merit of my question. This is a question which you have repeatedly been asked to clarify upon yet you have danced about and not done so. You even struck the deal that if I first agreed that anything could be assigned a name you would show the relevance. If you had taken the time to actually read what I have posted in red lettering you would see that I have no difficulty in conceding this, yet still you choose to dance away. You are simply ducking out now because you are either unable to support what you have said and/or are unwilling to admit what you said didn’t make sense or should have been worded more clearly. There is no other reason than your ego getting in the way. Since getting you to support your own postings meets with nothing of substance, I am content to let the readers judge the fairness of my criticisms for themselves.

Hope you don't take it personally.
Not at all, I believe I understand your position completely.

confutatis

Jun10-04, 05:02 PM

You are simply ducking out now because you are either unable to support what you have said and/or are unwilling to admit what you said didn’t make sense or should have been worded more clearly.

I am not unwilling to admit what I said should have been worded more clearly, but when I tried to reword it you said I was misdirecting your attention. I went to some trouble to explain what I meant by "how should I know", and what do I get from you? Not a "ah, now I understand it", but mindless criticism.

You talk too much and you say little of any substance. Put your money where your mouth is and show me you are capable of sustaining an intelligent conversation on a difficult philosophical topic. I will try and explain my position, you have to try and convince the readers of this forum that you can do better than pointing fingers at stuff you don't like.

I said everything you can think about can be given a name. You don't seem to disagree with that; in fact I can't even think why someone could possibly disagree with such an obvious fact. Your complaint is that it's often pointless to do so. I will adress that complaint now.

Financially speaking, everything you own, all your assets and personal belongings, can be converted into soya beans. If you own a car, your car is worth a certain amount of soya beans. Your clothes, your computer, your sunglasses, can be sold, and you can purchase soya beans with the proceeds. You don't object to that idea, right? You probably would say, "why in the world would anyone sell everything they own to buy soya beans". But I tried to tell you several times that the question is not relevant to what can be said once we agree on the convertibility between assets and soya beans - or between ideas and words.

The fact that everything you own amounts to a big pile of soya beans has an important consequence. Market imperfections aside, it means a big pile of soya beans can be converted into stuff that is far more useful to you than useless beans. If you are an investor, you can buy and sell soya beans, make a profit, turn that profit into stuff you need, without ever swallowing a soya bean, or even touching it. If an investor in commodities were to follow your line of thinking, he would never trade soya beans, for he has no use for them. It boggles my mind that you can't see the problem with your position.

When it comes to language, it is extremely important to know that, if you can express any idea in words, then the truths you find as a result of manipulating words according to the valid rules of the language will also be true ideas. For instance, if it is true that A is greater than B, and it is true that B is greater than C, then it's also true that A is greater than C, regardless of what A, B, and C refer to. But that is not the most relevant aspect.

The really meaningful point about ideas being exchangeable with words is something a lot of people ignore, for they do not understand it: a statement that violates the rules of language cannot possibly correspond to a true idea. In terms of soya trade, that is equivalent to the fact that a piece of paper giving ownership to a ton of soya can't possibly be worth more or less than an actual ton of soya.

A truckful of soya beans is worth exactly the same as a piece of paper giving ownership to a truckful of soya beans; anyone making claims to the contrary is lying, probably with the purpose of taking advantage from people who do not understand the market as well as they do. And so it is with ideas: the world is filled with people claiming that their linguistically invalid statements stand for valid ideas nonetheless. A little knowledge of the relationship between language and ideas clearly shows that to be impossible.

You may still find that irrelevant. But at least I gave you what you have been asking for. Let's see what you do with it.

Växan

Jun10-04, 05:07 PM

non of these arguments would be possible without language

so far i have seen very little evidence that analytical thought is possible without some form of language

Language has nothing to do with it. It is the culture, not the "language

i disagree, language has been shown to have a tremendous effect on the way information is processed, it's not a cultural difference, it's a basic neurological structural difference, based on the way the brain is hardwired from birth into adolescence, different languages create different synaptic connexion patterns in the brain

this also makes it virtually impossible to truly translate 1 language into another
a close approximation at best is to be expected

for example - in swedish: ska vi ta en fika? or even: ska vi fika? has no english equivalent, the nearest english analogue would be.. fancy a cuppa? or in the american language: would you like to join me for a cozy cup of tea or coffee and sweets or sandwiches, and most likely at a café or someone's home? - the phrase 'ska vi fika?' evokes an instant feeling of coziness in swedes, in english speakers it makes more intellectual demands (more synaptic operations)

BoulderHead

Jun10-04, 07:43 PM

Confutatis,
Putting the last, first;
You may still find that irrelevant. But at least I gave you what you have been asking for. Let's see what you do with it.
First, I would like to say thank you for taking the time to explain your position in a down to earth manner suitable to someone possessing my lack of mental capacity. :biggrin:
Ok, let’s have a look;

I said everything you can think about can be given a name. You don't seem to disagree with that; in fact I can't even think why someone could possibly disagree with such an obvious fact. Your complaint is that it's often pointless to do so. I will adress that complaint now.
Yes, it can be given a name, and the name need not be understandable to anyone, though what the name represents is knowable to the namer. I’m good with all this.

Financially speaking, everything you own, all your assets and personal belongings, can be converted into soya beans. If you own a car, your car is worth a certain amount of soya beans. Your clothes, your computer, your sunglasses, can be sold, and you can purchase soya beans with the proceeds. You don't object to that idea, right? You probably would say, "why in the world would anyone sell everything they own to buy soya beans".
Here is the difficulty being overlooked; you assume that all ideas, emotions, etc. are as perfectly convertible as tangible, worldly goods. Human experience says otherwise; language is not a perfect medium where everything can be bought and sold (the reason why language continues to be refined). This is exactly what members in this thread have been trying to inform you of.
But I tried to tell you several times that the question is not relevant to what can be said once we agree on the convertibility between assets and soya beans - or between ideas and words.
See above.

The fact that everything you own amounts to a big pile of soya beans has an important consequence. Market imperfections aside, it means a big pile of soya beans can be converted into stuff that is far more useful to you than useless beans. If you are an investor, you can buy and sell soya beans, make a profit, turn that profit into stuff you need, without ever swallowing a soya bean, or even touching it. If an investor in commodities were to follow your line of thinking, he would never trade soya beans, for he has no use for them. It boggles my mind that you can't see the problem with your position.
Let me try to help you out of the bog; everything I own may be convertible, but everything I experience isn’t. I don’t believe in the perfectibility of language and cannot fathom why you seem to.

Now, maybe we are not even arguing the same thing so I want to spell out what side I’m on;

I’m on the side holding it’s possible to think without always having to conduct a monologue inside your head in order to do so.

Note that my use of the word ‘think’ is not meant to be all-inclusive, nor does it have to be to prove my point. I believe there exist many layers to the thought process and while nonverbal thinking may be limited or constricting it nevertheless qualifies as thinking.

When it comes to language, it is extremely important to know that, if you can express any idea in words, then the truths you find as a result of manipulating words according to the valid rules of the language will also be true ideas. For instance, if it is true that A is greater than B, and it is true that B is greater than C, then it's also true that A is greater than C, regardless of what A, B, and C refer to. But that is not the most relevant aspect.
I think what you’re dismissing is the significance of that mighty big “if” that I put the red coloring to above. My argument isn’t about what language can reveal after the ground rules have been agreed upon, either. Consider what has transpired; we have gone from agreeing that any arbitrary utterance can be assigned to a thought/feeling to something completely different; being able to express the meaning of that utterance. This is what you have been told isn’t always possible, but you bulldoze past it anyway.

The really meaningful point about ideas being exchangeable with words is something a lot of people ignore, for they do not understand it: a statement that violates the rules of language cannot possibly correspond to a true idea. In terms of soya trade, that is equivalent to the fact that a piece of paper giving ownership to a ton of soya can't possibly be worth more or less than an actual ton of soya.

A truckful of soya beans is worth exactly the same as a piece of paper giving ownership to a truckful of soya beans; anyone making claims to the contrary is lying, probably with the purpose of taking advantage from people who do not understand the market as well as they do. And so it is with ideas: the world is filled with people claiming that their linguistically invalid statements stand for valid ideas nonetheless. A little knowledge of the relationship between language and ideas clearly shows that to be impossible.
The reason your argument fails is clear; it is a false view because we can and do think all we want, despite sometimes not being able to express it verbally through the use of our language. Yes, this includes thinking about that magical feeling of orgasm, and knowing that we want to experience soon, without having to continually say to ourselves; I want to get that feeling I can’t describe in words.

You talk too much and you say little of any substance. Put your money where your mouth is and show me you are capable of sustaining an intelligent conversation on a difficult philosophical topic.
Call.

BoulderHead

Jun10-04, 08:06 PM

so far i have seen very little evidence that analytical thought is possible without some form of language
But note you’ve just applied a qualifier in the form of “analytical”. There are some very major limitations without a spoken language, no doubt.
This topic degenerated into questioning whether thought itself is possible without language, which is something I took issue with.

i disagree, language has been shown to have a tremendous effect on the way information is processed, it's not a cultural difference, it's a basic neurological structural difference, based on the way the brain is hardwired from birth into adolescence, different languages create different synaptic connexion patterns in the brain
Here might be a thought to ponder; my assumption is that human beings are basically all constructed the same way. If this can be assumed as true, then why shouldn’t any language developed by mankind be little more than a tool to express a commonality of mind?

this also makes it virtually impossible to truly translate 1 language into another
a close approximation at best is to be expected
You may know the saying (Dutch, I think) that all translators are traitors.

for example - in swedish: ska vi ta en fika? or even: ska vi fika? has no english equivalent, the nearest english analogue would be.. fancy a cuppa? or in the american language: would you like to join me for a cozy cup of tea or coffee and sweets or sandwiches, and most likely at a café or someone's home? - the phrase 'ska vi fika?' evokes an instant feeling of coziness in swedes, in english speakers it makes more intellectual demands (more synaptic operations)
I had read of a language that had only had two words for colors; light and dark. Yet despite that, to say these people didn’t know the difference between red and blue would not be true. Language is certainly a fascinating thing !

Integral

Jun10-04, 08:21 PM

Need I say more then ...

Helen Keller,

Blind and deaf from birth... What language did she speak? Clearly she thought.

Dissident Dan

Jun10-04, 10:35 PM

Honestly, why do this? Are you trying to say I can't describe it? Of course I can, all I have to do is write some words. Do I have to actually write the words to prove you that I can write them? It sounds too childish to me.

Stop beating around the bush and go straight to the argument; supposedly we're smart enough to do that without engaging in childish games.

The point is that you can never convey the actual content of the feeling. Language is based on assumptions of mutual understanding. When a person describes the exhilieration of riding a roller coaster to me, that person cannot give his or her experiences to me. I have to rely upon inferences by correlating words with experiences, assuming that what someone else experiences is similar to what I experience in the same situation.

mikesvenson

Jun10-04, 11:56 PM

yes, language is mearly a tool. Thought, pure thought, is the source.

confutatis

Jun11-04, 09:20 AM

none of these arguments would be possible without language

Isn't it really strange to watch all these people writing hundreds, thousands of words to try and make a point that words have nothing to do with thought?

language has been shown to have a tremendous effect on the way information is processed, it's not a cultural difference, it's a basic neurological structural difference, based on the way the brain is hardwired from birth into adolescence, different languages create different synaptic connexion patterns in the brain. this also makes it virtually impossible to truly translate 1 language into another; a close approximation at best is to be expected

Being bilingual, I do know what you are talking about! Some thoughts in one language simply do not exist in the other, which is what makes them impossible to be translated. That alone is strong evidence that you only think what your language allows you to think about.

Perhaps one has to be bilingual to understand what you and I are talking about?

confutatis

Jun11-04, 09:35 AM

The point is that you can never convey the actual content of the feeling.

Of course not, but neither does thinking. If reading a description of masturbation doesn't convey the actual feeling, neither does thinking about it! Where exactly is the problem? Where is the fundamental difference between thought and language, that makes one more powerful than the other? Can you ejaculate by thinking about masturbation?

Language is based on assumptions of mutual understanding.

Nonsense. What does "assumption" mean in the absence of language? How can you make assumptions if you can't communicate them?

confutatis

Jun11-04, 09:58 AM

Yes, it can be given a name, and the name need not be understandable to anyone, though what the name represents is knowable to the namer. I’m good with all this.

OK.

Here is the difficulty being overlooked; you assume that all ideas, emotions, etc. are as perfectly convertible as tangible, worldly goods.

They are perfectly convertible into symbols. You just said you were good with all this.

Human experience says otherwise; language is not a perfect medium where everything can be bought and sold (the reason why language continues to be refined)

What you are saying there implies that abstract ideas are either impossible or false. But the claim you just made is an abstract idea.

Let me try to help you out of the bog;

Don't help me! Let the fires of hell consume my soul; I'm happy that way.

everything I own may be convertible, but everything I experience isn’t.

What does experience have to do with thought? Surely you can think about experience, but if you think about the experience in the abstract then you are using symbols, therefore you are using language. And for the life of me I can't conceive of how one would think about experiences without doing so in the abstract.

I don’t believe in the perfectibility of language...

Do you believe in the perfectibility of thought?????

Now, maybe we are not even arguing the same thing

Definitely not. You think language is a specific collection of symbols, such as the English language. I think language is far more than that; it is the mental process that gives meaning to a meaningless collection of symbols.

If you claim we can think about things for which there are no words in English, it would be foolish of me to dispute it. But I also think it's foolish of you to think anyone would join a philosophy forum with such misinformed notions.

I’m on the side holding it’s possible to think without always having to conduct a monologue inside your head in order to do so.

Show me a single post where I said anything to the contrary, and I'll change my alias to TheFoolestPosterOnThisForum.

The fact that you are still trying to convince me of something I'm so tired of knowing I would never bring up implies you are lagging far behind in this dialogue.

Consider what has transpired; we have gone from agreeing that any arbitrary utterance can be assigned to a thought/feeling to something completely different; being able to express the meaning of that utterance. This is what you have been told isn’t always possible, but you bulldoze past it anyway.

I "bulldoze" it because it's so beside the point as to be unbelievable you keep bringing it up. What does the fact that you can't communicate an idea have to do with the relationship between thought and language?

If the only purpose of language is to communicate ideas, why is it that your are almost always conducting a monologue inside your head? What is the point of talking to yourself in your own mind, for hours on end, without ever uttering most words you think about?

The reason your argument fails is clear; it is a false view because we can and do think all we want

Yes, my argument is obviously false, and you can't understand why I can't see the obvious flaw in it. Whatever.

hypnagogue

Jun11-04, 11:19 AM

Of course not, but neither does thinking. If reading a description of masturbation doesn't convey the actual feeling, neither does thinking about it! Where exactly is the problem? Where is the fundamental difference between thought and language, that makes one more powerful than the other? Can you ejaculate by thinking about masturbation?

The balance of power lies not so much in thought vs. language, but in subjectivity vs. objectivity. As Dan said, experiences can't be straightforwardly transmitted between two minds. Therefore, if A uses some words to refer to experience E, and B has never experienced E, B has no point of reference for those words and so has no direct meaning to give them.

Thinking about masturbation doesn't induce an actually felt orgasm on the part of the thinker. But what it does do (for the experienced) is refer to memory of past experiences of actually felt orgasm, among other things. Consider a person (presumably a very religious person :biggrin:) who has never masturbated or had an orgasm. This person has had no experiences relating to the relevant words, hence no point of experiential reference, hence impoverished understanding of the terms.

Basically, words are grounded in (refer to) experience. Experiences cannot be shared, but words can. Therefore, meaningful communication of experience can occur if words are communicated between two parties such that the words refer to the same experience for both parties. So the picture of person 1 communicating an experience E to person 2 looks something like this:

person 1xxxxxxxxxxxxxxperson 2

wordsxxxxxx----->xxxwords
^xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx|
|xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxv
experience Exxxxxxxxxxexperience E

If person 2 has never experienced E before, then person 1's communication is meaningless, because there is no point of reference for his words that 2 can relate to. Thought, being completely internal, by definition always has experiential referents for its objects of thought. Since words can be externalized but thoughts cannot, there is always the possibility that the grounding experiential reference of words will be lost when they are shared between two parties.

BoulderHead

Jun11-04, 01:19 PM

Let me cut to the chase;

Surely you can think about experience, but if you think about the experience in the abstract then you are using symbols, therefore you are using language. And for the life of me I can't conceive of how one would think about experiences without doing so in the abstract.
Ok, I think I see your argument.

Definitely not. You think language is a specific collection of symbols, such as the English language. I think language is far more than that; it is the mental process that gives meaning to a meaningless collection of symbols.
You oversimplify my position but I do see now that you are really arguing the definition of language, so I’m glad I understand your position finally, even if I don’t necessarily agree it.

If you claim we can think about things for which there are no words in English, it would be foolish of me to dispute it.
There is no need to be so restrictive as to limit it to English (it isn’t my first language, nor is it the language I regularly “think” in). Still, I’m glad you agree that it would be foolish to dispute what can be inferred from that statement, because that seems to me exactly what you have been doing, although you deny it now.

But I also think it's foolish of you to think anyone would join a philosophy forum with such misinformed notions.
I can only argue the points I understand are being made. The author (in this case, you) shares some of the burden if their point is not being identified. Simply put, if you wanted to make the case you now appear to be making you should have been more clear about it.

The fact that you are still trying to convince me of something I'm so tired of knowing I would never bring up implies you are lagging far behind in this dialogue.
Interesting how my inability to clearly see your meaning through poorly written posts and not accepting your undefined terms as unshakable truths constitutes lagging. Especially so in light of the fact you almost never got around to explaining yourself.

I "bulldoze" it because it's so beside the point as to be unbelievable you keep bringing it up. What does the fact that you can't communicate an idea have to do with the relationship between thought and language?
I’ll give a hint; language implies communication, communication implies more than a single entity (person to person, person to computer, etc.). Next time try defining your terminology up front rather than expecting others to read your mind.

If the only purpose of language is to communicate ideas, why is it that your are almost always conducting a monologue inside your head? What is the point of talking to yourself in your own mind, for hours on end, without ever uttering most words you think about?
I never put a limit on language as having purpose only for communicating ideas to others. But neither have I been defining language in the way you appear to do, either.

Ok, I read your first post over where you said this;
"Language" is not a well-defined concept, so those kinds of questions are tricky….
You are correct, it is tricky. Seeing now how you choose to define language I submit you should have taken more effort to expound on terminology from the outset rather than expecting others to naturally hold a similar defintion to the one you accept.

Yes, my argument is obviously false, and you can't understand why I can't see the obvious flaw in it. Whatever.
To be honest, it’s been difficult to determine what you are actually arguing, but the reason for this has more to do with yourself than anyone else. You want to define language broadly at minutes to midnight but examination of your posts makes clear you were using a narrower (and more commonly understood) definition. Just look;
I always find it funny when people seem to overreact to the suggestion that language is far more important in their lives than they realize. It's specially ironic considering people spend something like 90% of their waking time either talking to other people or, more often, verbalizing thoughts in their inner voice.
Here we can clearly see you discuss language in the same breath you tie it to spoken words, yet you turn around later and attempt a definition game.

In short, what I see you doing in these later posts is practicing artfulness. So you may doubt my intellect all you wish, but I have no good reason to believe you are either sincere, or much of a philosopher. This view is reinforced by your statement;
Don't help me! Let the fires of hell consume my soul; I'm happy that way.
Poignant.

Dissident Dan

Jun11-04, 01:50 PM

confutatis

Jun11-04, 01:51 PM

I can only argue the points I understand are being made. The author (in this case, you) shares some of the burden if their point is not being identified.

You're still playing the finger-pointing game. I gave you what you asked for, take it or leave it. I have nothing further to add.

BoulderHead

Jun11-04, 02:02 PM

Isn't it really strange to watch all these people writing hundreds, thousands of words to try and make a point that words have nothing to do with thought?
What an asinine statement. It is such a complete and total Strawman that is only goes to show you do not have a clue what others are actually saying!

Word have plenty to do with thought, get a clue.

BoulderHead

Jun11-04, 02:06 PM

You're still playing the finger-pointing game. I gave you what you asked for, take it or leave it. I have nothing further to add.
Yes, I'm only sorry it took 'til nearly the 60th post to get something meaningful out of you, namely;
I think language is far more than that; it is the mental process that gives meaning to a meaningless collection of symbols.
It would have cleared a lot up if you had said as much long ago, but you are right, you did give me what I asked for and so I am obliged to thank you for it. Still, if repeatedly pointing to things you have said is what it takes to get a sensible answer out of you then I'm glad I took the time and I'll not hesitate to do so again, if the need arises, either. When you equate the mental process to language and proclaim; we use language to think, then by definition you must be correct, interesting. Care to argue the definition of language with me?

[edited to present a kinder, gentler, BoulderHead]

BoulderHead

Jun11-04, 02:13 PM

Originally Posted by confutatis
Of course not, but neither does thinking. If reading a description of masturbation doesn't convey the actual feeling, neither does thinking about it! Where exactly is the problem? Where is the fundamental difference between thought and language, that makes one more powerful than the other? Can you ejaculate by thinking about masturbation?
Yet another demonstration of brilliance; I suppose you never heard of nocturnal emission?

confutatis

Jun11-04, 03:37 PM

The balance of power lies not so much in thought vs. language, but in subjectivity vs. objectivity. As Dan said, experiences can't be straightforwardly transmitted between two minds. Therefore, if A uses some words to refer to experience E, and B has never experienced E, B has no point of reference for those words and so has no direct meaning to give them.

In what way does that prevent me from giving a name to anything I can think of?

Consider a person who has never masturbated or had an orgasm. This person has had no experiences relating to the relevant words, hence no point of experiential reference, hence impoverished understanding of the terms.

But that is the opposite of what I'm talking about. If I have an experience that nobody else has, I can give it a name, and I can try to communicate what I mean by that name to other people. Moreover, I can think about an experience I never had based on my linguistic knowledge of it. For instance, I know a lot of stuff about "enlightenment" despite the fact that I never experienced it.

Basically, words are grounded in (refer to) experience.

In what experience is my understanding of the word "enlightened" grounded? You must acknowledge I know enough about "enlightenment" to know I never experienced it. Where did I get that knowledge? As for people who have experienced it, how did they know it was "enlightenment" if they have no way to know about it other than experiencing it?

Think about this: is it possible that all these people talking about "enlightenment" are actually talking about completely different things? I don't think that is possible, but your position implies it is.

Experiences cannot be shared, but words can.

If experiences cannot be shared, how come people talk about "sharing their experiences" all the time? When I traveled to Japan everyone wanted to know what it was like; should I have said "there's nothing I can tell you about Japan; you have to go there and experience it"? That is nonsense.

If person 2 has never experienced E before, then person 1's communication is meaningless, because there is no point of reference for his words that 2 can relate to.

I take it then that I cannot say I have never experienced "enlightenment", for I have no way to know what it is. Maybe I do experience it everytime I listen to rap music... how should I know? How could I ever know?

Thought, being completely internal, by definition always has experiential referents for its objects of thought.

What is the experiential referent of the word "infinite"?

Since words can be externalized but thoughts cannot, there is always the possibility that the grounding experiential reference of words will be lost when they are shared between two parties.

So how come people have no problem agreeing on what "infinite" means? How is it that they know they are "happy" or "desperate" when those words do not relate to anything objective?

---------------------------------------

I am surprised at the prejudice many people show against language. I can understand the fact that we care about experience far more than we care about language; that no amount of knowledge about a thing can possibly replace the sensation of experiencing that thing. But at the same time, I'm surprised some people think language somehow is unnecessary or irrelevant for who we are.

By the time a person finishes high-school, the vast majority of that person's knowledge comes from language. Through language a person learns about the ancient Romans, about distant galaxies, about quarks and leptons, Mozart and Bach, romanticism, philosophy... what an exciting array of opportunities is given to us by a mere collection of meaningless symbols! It's mind-boggling when you think about it.

So to all of you claiming language is less important, less powerful, less useful, less effective than experience, and that it is not required for thinking, I suggest you burn your books, throw away your library card, sell your computer, and go live life as you say it ought to be lived: by limiting your knowledge to what you can experience. The rest of us, we're content with this huge achievement called civilization, which is built upon nothing but an enormous arrangement of just 26 letters.

And here ends my ode to language. You may now go back to bashing it as a frill that is only useful, as a famous philosopher jested, to ask other people to pass the butter.

hypnagogue

Jun11-04, 06:34 PM

In what experience is my understanding of the word "enlightened" grounded? You must acknowledge I know enough about "enlightenment" to know I never experienced it. Where did I get that knowledge? As for people who have experienced it, how did they know it was "enlightenment" if they have no way to know about it other than experiencing it?

You can achieve a tangential understanding of enlightenment by creating an image of it using the words that are used to describe it, by way of reference of your own experiential understanding of these words. The words hint at a composite of experiences, and you have experienced many of these things yourself even though you have never experienced enlightenment. I take it for granted that you have experienced things such as happiness and profound peace, and that you can construct at least a conceptual understanding of terms such as 'oneness.' In this way, whenever words such as happiness and peace arise in descriptions of the experience, you can piece together your own experiences of happiness and peace and so on to make an educated guess at the target experience being described, enlightenment.

For instance, if I hear a woman describing menstruation in terms of pains, cramps, mood swings and such, I can construct something of an empathic understanding of the experience of menstruation by relating it to my own experiences with pains, cramps, mood swings, and the like. At the same time, I would not expect my constructed understanding of this experience to give me the same level of understanding of it as a woman has. To achieve that, I would have to be a woman and experience it myself. This is ultimately due to the fuzzy nature of the reference of words. I know what a cramp is like, but do I know what a menstrual cramp is like? Moreover, do I know what a cramp is like when accompanied by mood swings and other subtle mental effects that may slip through the cracks of the somewhat coarse treatment afforded by language? I can certainly approach an understanding, but the precise nuances of such an experience are likely to elude me.

This is doubly true for one who is trying to understand altered states of consciousness that one has never experienced, such as enlightenment. In general, the more a described experience differs from the experiential reservoir of a person trying to comprehend it, the more difficulty that person will have in understanding it. For instance, a blind person can begin to approximate what it must be like to see by reference to his own experiential concepts of space, shape, and so on as achieved through perception of sound, touch, proprioception, etc. But clearly, since the nature of sound, touch, and and so on differ so radically from the experience of vision, the blind person's understanding will be a very impoverished one, certainly more impoverished than my understanding of what it is like to menstruate. A person who has never achieved altered states and tries to understand them through linguistic descriptions is more like a blind person trying to understand vision than a man trying to understand menstruation.

BoulderHead

Jun11-04, 09:51 PM

I am surprised at the prejudice many people show against language. I can understand the fact that we care about experience far more than we care about language; that no amount of knowledge about a thing can possibly replace the sensation of experiencing that thing. But at the same time, I'm surprised some people think language somehow is unnecessary or irrelevant for who we are.
It isn’t a question of prejudice. I don’t think anyone here believes language is unnecessary or irrelevant either, that’s absurd. You continue to exaggerate the matter out of proportion.

By the time a person finishes high-school, the vast majority of that person's knowledge comes from language. Through language a person learns about the ancient Romans, about distant galaxies, about quarks and leptons, Mozart and Bach, romanticism, philosophy... what an exciting array of opportunities is given to us by a mere collection of meaningless symbols! It's mind-boggling when you think about it
Yes, it’s fantastic I agree, but this romanticism is really not germane.

So to all of you claiming language is less important, less powerful, less useful, less effective than experience, and that it is not required for thinking, I suggest you burn your books, throw away your library card, sell your computer, and go live life as you say it ought to be lived: by limiting your knowledge to what you can experience. The rest of us, we're content with this huge achievement called civilization, which is built upon nothing but an enormous arrangement of just 26 letters. Such Drama! Perhaps 2/5 of what you charge has actually been claimed, and none of it meant in so negative a manner as you portray, so get a clue. Nobody is limiting their knowledge by disagreeing with you, so stop pretending you belong with civilization while others are better suited to the stone age.

And here ends my ode to language. You may now go back to bashing it as a frill that is only useful, as a famous philosopher jested, to ask other people to pass the butter.
Nobody was bashing language, not ever

Rader

Jun13-04, 06:43 AM

Core

Jun13-04, 10:22 AM

Yes we can think without language. Mostly we tend to think in words to ourself, to communicate with ourself with language. But there are times, at least for me, when I think simply in images. I can evaulate many different courses of action in less than a second and choose one from just a series of images that flash across my mind. When I read a book, I don't simply read the words and have only an intellectual understanding of the work, I am actually in the world created, seeing it all. The words are just a pipeline carrying the essence. When I come up with ideas, it's not framed in words, I see the idea in my head and can manipulate it as I choose without language.

Sometimes I think we put too much stock in language, thinking that it is an accurate portrayal of what someone is thinking but there is a breakdown between what's in a persons head and what he says because of language and his unique point of view. Thus we are fated to perpeptually misunderstand each other until we can take a look in each others head and from each others point of view.

BoulderHead

Jun13-04, 03:22 PM

I would launch a soft attack against Humboldt’s theory that people who speak different languages think differently. The reason for a soft attack is at least twofold because depending on how “think differently” is defined it could be argued that even people speaking the same language may think differently from each other, heh. The difficult task of ‘looking’ inside someone’s head to determine the exact nature of their thinking has to be considered, too.
Intuitively, judging from physical actions, if people are considered as function generators, fed a similar input then output in a similar fashion to each other, a commonality of thought may be inferred. Of course, this can be a deception, too. If, for example, we were to analogize with computers running different operating systems, yes, a new browser window may indeed open in both instances yet the routines in operation could be very different. Nevertheless, here is one approach I would take to expose weakness in Humboldt’s position;

We should all be aware that a single word may have many meanings (rich in metaphor). The context in which a word is used is important; “dinner”, for example, may simply refer to food, or it may be a command to stand up, wash your hands, then walk over to a table and take your place. The vagueness of words, although leading so often to confusion, adds a genuine richness to words that enable people to conceptualize many different things, even with a single word. Take the following example;

In Swedish, there are many different names for colors (for example: blue, red, white, light gray, purple, and cyan), but in certain languages in the world (for example in the Tiv language of New Guinea) there are only two words for color: light and dark. If you think that thoughts are influenced by language, then you might think that a Swedish speaker would be better at distinguishing colors than a Tiv speaker. This was studied, and the results showed that speakers with less names for colors in their language where able to distinguish colors just as well as speakers who had many names for colors. This would suggest that we can think of things which we do not have words for.

Taken from;
http://www.ling.gu.se/projekt/sprakfrageladan/english/sprakfakta/eng-sprak-och-tankande.html

The idea that thoughts are controlled or influenced by the language we speak can be attacked by realizing that while you may, in English, think: I want my new shirt to be ‘blue’, the Tiv speaker may think; I want my new shirt to be ‘dark’. It seems totally different upon cursory examination, yet while the words may be different both people can be conceptualizing the exact same color in their mind. This then is confirmed by their actions as each goes on to acquire a similarly colored shirt.

Make any sense?

Rader

Jun13-04, 05:17 PM

Is language, information? If it is, then language is a mapping of our experiences between awarness and behavior, that gives a meaning to changes.

There are many ways to exchange information and many languages to accomplish it. By thinking you are remapping experience, in your memory, this is a language in itself.

Thoughts are controlled or influenced by the language we speak, to the extent, of the meaning we put to the words. Thoughts are quantum in nature and not deterministic. Although thought can be controlled to some extent, it is not easy. Two exact thought imputs do not get one and the same result. Just try and type and answer to this post and erase it and try and write exactly the same thing again, the next day.

Thinking without language would be like being without any knowledge.

Janitor

Jun13-04, 05:43 PM

I believe the word you are looking for is flabbergasted.- Rader

Now there you go using Spanish on me. :biggrin:

Rader

Jun13-04, 06:16 PM

Now there you go using Spanish on me. :biggrin:

No flabbergasted is English. It is the experience of being astonished at something, that is blamed on someone else and you are responsible for it.
:surprise:

Tom McCurdy

Jun13-04, 07:52 PM

yes-language is just what we make of it. Sometimes i feel things that don't have a way to describe with language yet i still think

Prometheus

Jun28-04, 09:24 PM

is our thinking shaped by our native language and native environment?

There seems to be some ability to think without language, but this begs the question of what is language.

I agree with Whorf in that language affects thinking and culture. For example, religion is common among people whose native language is English. Our ancestors have had religion since ancient times. In ancient times, the native speakers of Chinese did not have reliigion, as the grammar of Chinese does not natively support religion. Over the past 2,000 years or so, religions have been imported from the west, such as Buddhism and Christianity.

Speakers of English and speakers of Chinese have numerous differences in the way that they perceive reality. For example, Chinese speakers see Chinese medicine as quite natural, whereas English speakers typically find it quite difficult to understand and accept its theories as natural and useful.

There is another important consideration. Some people think that they can think in pictures, for example, and thereby bypass language. Although this may be true to a degree, perhaps, the structure of their visualizations is certinainly guided to a degree by their awareness of the grammar of their language, even if not using words to apply that grammar.

Evo

Jun29-04, 02:42 AM

For example, religion is common among people whose native language is English. Our ancestors have had religion since ancient times. In ancient times, the native speakers of Chinese did not have reliigion, as the grammar of Chinese does not natively support religion. Over the past 2,000 years or so, religions have been imported from the west, such as Buddhism and Christianity.

Speakers of English and speakers of Chinese have numerous differences in the way that they perceive reality. For example, Chinese speakers see Chinese medicine as quite natural, whereas English speakers typically find it quite difficult to understand and accept its theories as natural and useful.
I don't know what you consider ancient, but the Chinese have had documented religions for thousands of years.

"During the Bronze Age (2205-256 BC) in China, the Chinese worshipped many gods and spirits. One of the most important deities during the Shang Dynasty was Ti. Ti means "Deity Above," or "the Lord on High." He was believed to punish people who offended him and reward those who pleased him."

http://blue.butler.edu/~jfmcgrat/china/religion1.htm

Prometheus

Jun29-04, 10:17 AM

I don't know what you consider ancient, but the Chinese have had documented religions for thousands of years.

"During the Bronze Age (2205-256 BC) in China, the Chinese worshipped many gods and spirits. One of the most important deities during the Shang Dynasty was Ti. Ti means "Deity Above," or "the Lord on High." He was believed to punish people who offended him and reward those who pleased him."

Hi. I read the page that you cited. I believe that the author called this a religion because he has no other form of reference for such beliefs. I think that religion is an approximation, but is not correct. This ancestor worship is not religion in the sense that we conisder it in the west. He cites 3 religions, Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism. The first 2 were not religions, and anyway were developed some 500 B.C., and Buddhism was imported.

By the way, Ti does not mean Deity Above. Shang Ti, which is used by modern Christians as a translation of their god, can be roughly translated as Deity Above. Ti by itself has no above, and has no relationship to western religion, such that the translation of Ti to deity is more of convenience than of accuracy.

Although you have found a citation to demonstrate your belief, I recommend that you leave this point open in your mind. Because westerners who have religion look at China and see religion does not necessarilly mean that this is religion in any way like in the west.

Furthermore, in the west there are 2 seemingly incompatible models of the world, religion and science. These are separate and distinct. In China, there was no such distinction. The beliefs of the ancients were a merging of what in the west is called science and religion, because ancient China only recognized a unified model of nature, not subdivided models as in the west.

Evo

Jun29-04, 10:10 PM

Hi. I read the page that you cited. I believe that the author called this a religion because he has no other form of reference for such beliefs. I think that religion is an approximation, but is not correct. This ancestor worship is not religion in the sense that we conisder it in the west. He cites 3 religions, Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism. The first 2 were not religions, and anyway were developed some 500 B.C., and Buddhism was imported.The first two are included in listings of Chinese religions. See the link below to The Society for the Study of Chinese Religion as an example. Obviously I can't list every source on the internet, but this link provides a list of many sources.

http://www.indiana.edu/~sscr/

Because westerners who have religion look at China and see religion does not necessarilly mean that this is religion in any way like in the west.Just because religious beliefs and practices in China or other countries are unlike modern organized Christian religion does not change the fact that it is still considered religion.

Furthermore, in the west there are 2 seemingly incompatible models of the world, religion and science. These are separate and distinct. In China, there was no such distinction. The beliefs of the ancients were a merging of what in the west is called science and religion, because ancient China only recognized a unified model of nature, not subdivided models as in the west.May I ask where are you getting your information? Chinese religion, especially ancient Chinese religion had nothing to do with science.

"Early Chinese religion was based upon the belief in supernatural powers who manifested themselves in animals, vegetation, and the processes of birth, ageing and death."

"An important aspect of religious practice was divination. This was done through the use of oracle bones. Heated bronze rods would be applied to bones in order to produce cracks, which would then be interpreted by shamans or priests. It was believed that the departed ancestors and deities were sending down advice or commands on a wide variety of subjects through the oracle bones."

http://philtar.ucsm.ac.uk/encyclopedia/china/preclass.html

Popular religion dates back to the earliest periods of Chinese history. Evidence of divination, astrology, belief in spirits and demons have been a part of Chinese culture since time immemorial. These primitive beliefs were modified by the development of classical Chinese philosophy in the form of Confucianism and the transplantation of Buddhism into China.

Over time the Chinese pantheon came to reflect the order of the Chinese political system. During the T'ang dynasty (619-907 CE) the Jade Emperor was given the title 'Jade Emperor Lord on High'. During the Sung dynasty (960-1126 CE) the Jade Emperor came to be regarded as the ruler of the heavenly court and bureaucracy. Heaven became a form of bureaucratic system, with each department overseen by a particular deity or spirit - just like the political system on earth.

The closeness of the political order and the celestial order was best evidenced by the sacrifices on the days of the winter and summer solstices. At the time of the winter solstice the Chinese emperor, the Son of Heaven, had to offer a sacrifice to Shang Ti, the Lord on High on the Altar of Heaven. At the summer solstice the emperor offered a sacrifice on the Altar of Earth. These were done on behalf of the people in recognition of humanity's dependence upon higher powers.

http://philtar.ucsm.ac.uk/encyclopedia/china/pop.html

For example, religion is common among people whose native language is English. Our ancestors have had religion since ancient times. In ancient times, the native speakers of Chinese did not have reliigion, as the grammar of Chinese does not natively support religion.I can find nothing that supports your statement, so I'm curious what it is that you've been reading. Do you have a link to this information?

I agree with Whorf in that language affects thinking and culture.I don't see any evidence of this, but I will be glad to read whatever examples you have.

Prometheus

Jul10-04, 03:30 PM

The first two are included in listings of Chinese religions.

People in English use the word religion because that is the closest word that approximates the Chinese concept. However, such listings do not mean that they are religions, except insofar as the significant differences are to be ignored. Such an approach is not invalid, it is just somewhat misleading.

Just because religious beliefs and practices in China or other countries are unlike modern organized Christian religion does not change the fact that it is still considered religion.

What do you mean by fact? I do not understand what you consider to be fact. The key word here is "considered". Who considers these to be religion, and for what purpose? Is it to discuss a concept with a western audience in a manner that avoids discussing the significant differences in order to focus on the similarities. You say that "it is considered religion" in an objective manner. Perhaps you mean that you consider it such, and several websites post it as such. These are not considered religion by all. In fact, if you can read Chinese, I suggest that you look at Chinese writings. Not one, in my experience, has ever called Daoism or Confucianism a religion. The word religion is a translation of the Chinese selected for simplicity; it is an easy word to select and readers have an approximate understanding of it. This avoids the difficulty in attempting to explain why these are not really religions.

Chinese religion, especially ancient Chinese religion had nothing to do with science.

My point exactly. There is no such thing as ancient Chinese religion, and there is no such thing as ancient Chinese science. However, from the western, Indo-European point of view, such words can be imposed on Chinese beliefs. In China, there was no such thing as religion or science as we in the west understand it. There was only the unity of this dichotomy, known as the Dao. As long as you subdivide religion from science, as is common in the west, then you cannot understand the unity of the Dao, and you cannot understand how this attempt to subdivide Chinese models of nature into western forms, religion and science, is to introduce misunderstanding.

I can find nothing that supports your statement, so I'm curious what it is that you've been reading. Do you have a link to this information?

I am sorry that I have no quotes for you now. However, if you could read Chinese, then you will find that the English words religion and science have zero correlates in ancient Chinese. There are no words that correspond to our subdivision of nature into science and religion. Chinese has only unified models of nature. The imposition of the words science and religion is done for simplicity, not for accuracy.

As I present no citations to refute your citations, please feel free to maintain your current position, and ignore mine if you wish. However, I will say that all of your citations are in English, where the separation of science and religiion is recognized. In Chinese, there are no ancient words for these separate forms, there are only words for unified understandings of nature.

Philocrat

Aug14-04, 08:01 PM

What type of language? You mean all kinds? Or do you mean the human language alone?

Prometheus

Aug14-04, 11:16 PM

Can we think without language?
Animals can think, to a degree. Without language, humans can think to a similar degree. I believe that it is not possible to think in any manner at all similar to our current degree were a person to have no language whatsoever. It is possible for people to have insights, hunches, visualizations, etc. without the need for words to create or accompany them, but knowledge of the structure of the grammar of a language is required to achieve complexity in thought even when words are not being voiced to make the use of grammar apparent.

the American linguist Benjamin Lee Whorf based his (Whorf-Hypothesis)
on the idea that thoughts are controlled or influenced by the language we speak.
I think quite hightly of Whorf's ideas. The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis has gone in and out of favor over the decades.

is our thinking shaped by our native language and native environment?
I believe that to a hight degree it is. All people are of the same species, and therefore there are naturally constants and a limited variation in the range of some capabilities. However, I believe that thinking is guided in a significant way by the grammar that a person uses to perform that thinking. I find, for example, that the organization of time differs very greatly among different langauges of the world. I have noticed what I consider are significant differences among behaviors that reflect the manner in which time is organized among languages.

does the average person in China experience the same thought processes as the average person in Sweden?
Humans are similar animals, and therefore the their thought processes are similar, as they are constrainted by physical limits. However, they are not exactly the same, and there are differences that I consider are linguistically motivated. When I interpret Japanese into English, some of the most common and important words in Japanese speech I omit entirely in the English version, because the significant social implications of such words do not convey any meaning in English.

does the average person who has grown up in a city surrounded by water such as Stockholm think in the same way as a person who has grown up in a dessert such as Saudi Arabia?
What do you mean by same? People in any country who grow up in cosmopolitan areas tend to have very different opinions and to make very different observations than people who grow up in extremely rural areas. The difference that your decribe is even greater.

praveen

Aug15-04, 01:14 AM

if we can understand what is ( involved in) "thinking"..then probably we can get obvious answer to "can we think without a language".

i feel "thinking" is a process of mind going over "known stuff" stored in the brain and "known stuff" can be anything...it can be language or a symbol.

we can recall(think of) all the letters from A to Z in english language OR we can imagine(think of) our family members face.

so i conclude , we can think without a language.

BoulderHead

Aug16-04, 12:12 AM

Imparcticle

Aug16-04, 01:39 AM

I haven't read all six pages of this thread, but I just wanted to point out something.
As a side note:
According to a SCIAM article I read, babies under the age of 2 or 3 do not have conscious thought. But they do have unconscious thought processing.

Rader

Aug16-04, 07:33 AM

Anyone ever been stumped by a problem you had been thinking about long and hard, only to resolve to put the matter away into a deep recess of the mind and do something else? Ever had the answer ‘pop’ into your mind even though you hadn’t been consciously thinking about finding a solution? Would such a thing constitute thinking without language?

Post page 5.

Ya, Most of my problem solving is done dreaming. Maybe I am just a worry wart but when I wake the next day I have a greater capacity to rexolve the days problems. So is dreaming a language? No sure what kind of a dream is, when you are dreaming, know that you are, yet are concsious of problem solving in your dreams.

physicskid

Sep1-04, 04:08 AM

I think the differentce in thinking using diffrent languages lies more in the way of presenting and organising what the speaker/writer wants to convey. For example, in one language, it could be convey in a form of a rhetorical question, and in another language, presented as a statement.

By the way, the ancient chineses do place emphasis on scientic developements, though most revolve around millitary tech.

Check out this website on ancient chinese technology and developements: http://library.thinkquest.org/23062/index.html

And this article, titled You are what you speak: http://www.straitstimes.com.sg/columnist/0%2C1886%2C145-231620-%2C00.html

zubzy

Sep18-04, 10:38 AM

Being one who is mainly mathematically/physics orientated, thinking in a language does not seem right to me. I feel that I need to 'force' myself in order to extrapolate words to paper, as I do now.

When I think of maths, it's almost as if an extra door opens in my head and I'm able to produce things that were impossible when I was in 'language mode.' Things also seem to be clearer; make more sense.
There have been very few English words where I was able to really understand the essence, the fundamental meaning; basically there are few words for me that have a second nature meaning.

Janitor

Jul1-05, 11:54 PM

I've long thought that English is lacking a good word for the feeling you have when you witness somebody else getting blamed for doing something (or for failing to do something) that you actually did (or failed to do). I wouldn't be surprised if there are other languages which do have such a word.

I witnessed something this week that reminded me of a similar incident that happened a quarter-century ago, and that in turn reminded me of this discussion thread.

The extended family was at my grandparents' house. As it happens, Grandpa was walking around with an old coin in his hand, showing it one-by-one to everyone there. But my attention was on a conversation that two of my cousins were having in the corner of the room that the three of us happened to be in, so I wasn't really aware of what Grandpa was doing. All of the sudden there he is in front of me, and he hands me this coin. Now as it happens, he had on earlier occasions given me stuff like an old watch that no longer working (knowing that I liked to take things apart), and I assumed he was giving me this coin. I thanked him for it, and I hear my sister's voice: "He's not giving that to you," said words delivered in a tone of voice which conveyed the message: you are an idiot and a jerk. Of course I immediately realized that I had made a mistaken assumption and told Grandpa, "Hey, that's neat," and gave it back to him.

So my question is whether there is an English word that describes the feeling one has when one finds himself in that situation. "Sheepish" is as close as I can come, but maybe that doesn't quite do it justice.

Mariko

Jul2-05, 06:29 AM

Emotional, Visual and Auditory is how we think. Some of us use one of those senses more than the other two but I do think language was a product of these primal senses, a way to organize things between them all, hence language could have never been invented could we not think of names to give things or words to express the way we feel.

loseyourname

Jul2-05, 07:08 AM

Reviving ancient threads, eh? Couldn't somebody have simply asked Hellen Keller if she ever had thoughts before learning a language?

Doctordick

Jul2-05, 09:47 AM

Reviving ancient threads, eh? Couldn't somebody have simply asked Hellen Keller if she ever had thoughts before learning a language?Well, did you have any thoughts before learning a language:
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Doesn't anyone around here ever think about things before they post? :cry:

Have fun -- Dick

the_truth

Jul2-05, 03:52 PM

If we did not have language we would invent a form of unspoken language in our minds in order to understand the same concepts we are used to using language for. We do it all the time, when we remember how to tie our shoe laces.

Can you describe how to tie your shoe laces? You would have to compose some new terminology and think of how to explain how to tie your shoe laces first in order to do so as you have not already done so, yet you can tie your shoe laces.

We can think without spoken language, however communication is a part of thinking and that could be called language, though this is not what you meant so..

The answer is yes.

Doctordick

Jul3-05, 08:59 PM

If we did not have language we would invent a form of unspoken language in our minds in order to understand the same concepts we are used to using language for. We do it all the time, when we remember how to tie our shoe laces.Well, I won't argue with you over this statement but I think the rest of your post misses the point.
Can you describe how to tie your shoe laces? You would have to compose some new terminology and think of how to explain how to tie your shoe laces first in order to do so as you have not already done so, yet you can tie your shoe laces.That was not the question! The question was, "did you have any thoughts before learning a language?" Put it another way, do you remember having any thoughts before you learned a language? I don't know about you but my children had a rather substantial vocabulary long before they had learned to tie their shoe laces. It seems to me that there is little evidence that conscious thought occurs prior to learning a language.
We can think without spoken language, however communication is a part of thinking and that could be called language, though this is not what you meant so..How do you come to know what I meant? Read my essay on [URL=]squirrel logic[URL]. There is a big difference between "training" and "teaching". This is why idiot savants are seldom credited with "thinking".

We also seldom use the word thinking when we talk of animals. Animals can be trained to do a lot of things but, do they perform their feats because they "know what to do" or do they actually "think" the performance out? Note that I am not claiming that animals cannot think but rather that, if they do, I suspect they do possess mental processes equivalent to language.
The answer is yes. :rofl: :rofl: Yes to what? That humans can think before they learn a language or that some people think before they post?

You all need to take a look at a report published in the June 25, 2005 issue of Science News, Vol. 167, No 26 : Personable Brain Cells: Neurons as virtuosos of face, object recognition. Apparently significant primary elements of memory may be attached to specific neurons. Maybe there is a specific neuron for each qualia we come to know. :rofl: :rofl: The exact scientists may work this out yet.

Have fun -- Dick

Nomy-the wanderer

Jul4-05, 03:47 PM

Interesting thread, i beleive that thinkign is language dependant, cause people invented language and ecause u can think with any language u like, i do think in 3 languages..and on my way to do the same with the fourth...I think it depends more on the environment where u live, the way u were raised, surroundings, the nature of the place where u r ...

It's not the language..

Mariko

Jul6-05, 07:19 PM

Wait I have a problem with this... How could we even invent words could we not think of a name to give things?

Astronuc

Jul6-05, 08:44 PM

I would launch a soft attack against Humboldt’s theory that people who speak different languages think differently. The reason for a soft attack is at least twofold because depending on how “think differently” is defined it could be argued that even people speaking the same language may think differently from each other, heh. The difficult task of ‘looking’ inside someone’s head to determine the exact nature of their thinking has to be considered, too.True, but if one tries to translate one language to another, one finds subtle differences, which indicate slight differences in thinking. For example in English - subject, direct object, indirect object - are used. In German, one has the nominative, accusative (like D.O.), and dative (I.O.) cases, and possessive. There is rarely a unique one-to-one correspondence between prepositions of both languages. Then consider Russian - nominative, accusative, dative, genitive, prepositional, and instrumental cases. Among the three languages there are interesting differences among preposition-noun and verb-preposition-noun differences. Then through in Hindi, Japanese, Chinese and a host of other languages in the differences in thinking are quite interesting (although in many cases the basic concept is the same, as BoulderHead has indicated).

For reference, see - Internet Grammar of English (http://www.ucl.ac.uk/internet-grammar/)
German Grammar on the Web (http://www.arts.uwaterloo.ca/~skidmore/grammarpage.htm)
An On-line Russian Reference Grammar (http://www.alphadictionary.com/rusgrammar/)

Perhaps in more complex concepts, the thinking is quite different. But language and culture are somewhat inseparable. See my next set of comments.

We should all be aware that a single word may have many meanings (rich in metaphor). The context in which a word is used is important; “dinner”, for example, may simply refer to food, or it may be a command to stand up, wash your hands, then walk over to a table and take your place. The vagueness of words, although leading so often to confusion, adds a genuine richness to words that enable people to conceptualize many different things, even with a single word. Language provides context and content. Language and thinking go hand-in-hand, as in a closed loop with feedback. Adults and children think differently, because the knowledge and language are different. Language can be used to transmit indirect experience - e.g. children studying history of their culture or closer to home - their family.

The idea that thoughts are controlled or influenced by the language we speak can be attacked by realizing that while you may, in English, think: I want my new shirt to be ‘blue’, the Tiv speaker may think; I want my new shirt to be ‘dark’. It seems totally different upon cursory examination, yet while the words may be different both people can be conceptualizing the exact same color in their mind. This then is confirmed by their actions as each goes on to acquire a similarly colored shirt.Some differences may be inconsequential or insignificant.

bomba923

Jul9-05, 03:48 PM

As this is a thread on language, a year ago I started a very similar thread:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=46014
However, it may have been less comprehensive (I was planning to mention the Whorf hypothesis, and the counterargument by Steven Pinker (I think it was in his essay, "Mentalese"))--anyway, be sure to see:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=46014

Ubern0va

Jul11-05, 06:49 PM

Squirrels manage to think without a language, so I don't see why humans couldn't.

I agree with that to an extent. I think (no pun intended) that language helps extend our thoughts into a more complex realm, acting as a sort of prerequisite, allowing advanced human development to occur. Therefore, though I don't believe that thought would be totally non-existent in an organism that can’t speak, I'm quite sure that complex thought would be scarce.

servelan

Aug7-05, 06:57 AM

professor

Aug7-05, 02:29 PM

about the languagees may alter our thought process... im very skeptical i can speak english quite well...spanish somewhere near fluent and enough of other languages liek french and italian to make my way from one place to the next in a forign county... though before learning more than just english, i beleve my thought process must have been much alike, considering my style of writing has not changed any more then the addition of a few new words prehaps...i doubt very seriously that these philosophers were bilingual, or if hey were... then what a strange question to ask... in addition, how could one learn a language at all shortly after being born withuot the ability to think. pause...they couldent. sorry to maim your post, but just an expression of my thoughts on the matter. (though i will admit there ifs certainly a change of the way people think when learning a language...ie the ability to communicate greatly spurred the advancement of human civilization many years ago, and so does it still allow ideas to be more easily transferred and advanced upon.

dexed25

Aug10-05, 10:49 AM

tardis

Aug28-05, 11:25 PM

Good thread and interesting response Servelan. Having grown up in the east (global) and then moved to the US, I recall that there were words in Asia that spoke to different shades of shame, pride and honor. Shades that are not found (at least to the average Joe) in English. The difference in world view stemming from this are real. However the question that I ponder is whether this means that the language one learns first shapes our operating system to use a puter term. Clearly the default OS can be expanded, but how much and how quickly? and even more importantly, is there something we are missing by virtue of our language driven OS?

Mariko

Sep1-05, 07:38 PM

I was just watching this talk show with a woman who is audtistic and she says audtistic people like animals use sensory thinking... so how does this prove the theory wrong??

Temporarily Blah

Sep1-05, 08:16 PM

Without reading anything within this topic, I will randomly post what I believe to be possible;

You can think in images, yes there will be differences based on language, and there MIGHT be changes in ways of thinking based on location.

Also, personality effects thinking quite a lot.

Vossistarts

Sep1-05, 10:55 PM

the 19th century German Philosopher Wilhelm von Humboldt claimed that language was directly connected to thinking

that people around the world should actually think differently due to their native language

the American linguist Benjamin Lee Whorf based his (Whorf-Hypothesis)
on the idea that thoughts are controlled or influenced by the language we speak.

perhaps we can take this one step further into the science of Chorology
which is the relationship between thought and native environment

is our thinking shaped by our native language and native environment?

does the average person in China experience the same thought processes as the average person in Sweden?

does the average person who has grown up in a city surrounded by water such as Stockholm think in the same way as a person who has grown up in a dessert such as Saudi Arabia?

Sure we can think, or at least process our experience of things without language. Language is used to recreate the things we experience symbolically. In a real way it cuts us off from the truth of the things we name and conceptualize over. At some point though, you get to know your way around well enough, so that when you see the item we call a tree, you dont have to comment to yourself, " there is a tree". You just know it. Its cognative. Cognative processing ultimately has little need for the language system. It brings us back to experiencing things directly, where perception in vehicle and everything we percieve we flow into and it into us, connected.

Vossistarts

Sep1-05, 11:21 PM

Nobody seems to have mentioned it but certain psychedelics allow one to see what it's like not to have language.

Putting any pre-conceived ideas of these substances to one side I would say psilocybin (magic mushrooms) is one of the most reliable - I took quite a large dose the other day and entered this state where all my powers of language were completely wiped out. All self-generated meaning was cleared away too and I was literally an organism just looking out and experiencing the world. Words occasionally came into my head but they didn't mean anything.

It was a very interesting experience because I couldn't language anything but just experience the world in a really fresh and immediate way. Definitely an invaluable experience for me as I realised how much we replace reality with language and we don't even realise we're doing it. Instead of seeing things as they are we seem to replace primary experience with words. Here's an example for you - a baby is lying in it's cot and the most amazing creature comes in through the window. It's a kalaidoscopicly, dazzling fusion of light, sound and movement. The baby's mother comes into the room and says "baby, it's a bird, it's a bird". By the time the child is a few years old he sees a bird and says "it's a bird" and doesn't think twice about it. The amazing reality of this creature has been conveniently tiled over with a word. Do you see what I'm getting at?

I surely do see what youre getting at, and its right., Cognative processing is the next step, but drugs arent needed to get there. Ive been practicing and observing zen for almost 20 years and have made great progress with letting go of language based processing. Thats essentially what zen is about. As ive made steps towards independance from thinking in words and concepts my creative abilities and intelligence has blossomed in a way i never imagined. we start out learning all the names for things. IN the beginning especially but in many case always, we check our names against the memory of where we learned the name. as we get older we are able to start adding definitions and concepts to the names wever learned for things. definitions are often learned and concepts can be created but however you do your thing, your always tied to points in the past with the system. AS we go further along, we collect more word labels for the new things we learn and concepts seem to interrelate. So we can sit down and quietly consider many things, thing that have become words and our concepts of the things, but what were considering are only subjective ghosts or placeholders of what it IS. What were considering is our idea of what really is. Its rolling a globe over and over in our hands saying weve travelled the whole world.
As long as we use language to process, we call what is called a tree, a tree. Maybe we think some things about a tree, about its roots and trunk and leaves and circulatory system, and to whatever end that is all a tree is to us. But a tree is not a tree . It just is. Our ideas of a tree are dwarfed by what it really is. so you say," well, i can tell you this and this and this about a tree, and you dont call it anything, you just recognize it and all you can say about it is
"it is". So whos way is better?>"

Im connected to what it is in truth its substance. youre carrying around a model in your head that is fabricated out of thoughts that have no substance. Ask me to show something of merit to my way of percieving a tree, I might take what you can leaf home with me for an example. The leaf youll take home as an example of your way of processing is a ghost.

Dont get me completely wrong . I still process a lot of my world with language. Personally i think learning the world symbolically with language is very necessary, but it is not absolute. I cant really describe to you what it is like to experience the world entirely without thought and its only happened to me once for a short time. I can tell you, that the first thought i had after those few minutes was, " this is the next vantage to seeing the world around me exactly or at least more exactly as it is, this is the new frontier of my mind."