Medical Does Language and Environment Shape Our Thinking?

[BoulderHead]

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]

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 feelings of masturbating are thoughts. Furthermore, after I am done, even though I cannot make myself ejaculate by memory (although perhaps someone else might be able to; I don't knw), I can remember the feeling, albeit not as vivid as when the masturbation actually occurred.

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

People make uncommunicated assuptions all the time. A good example is when people are scared. Consider the situation in which someone opens a door in order to walk through it, but someone is standing there in the doorway. The person who opened the door is scared, because he assumed that the doorwa would be clear.

 

[confutatis]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"The missing word"

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.

Hello Janitor, I believe the word you are looking for is flabbergasted. This is the word taught to me by my Dad when in a similar situation.

 

[Core]

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]

Now back to the topic;

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]

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]

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

Now there you go using Spanish on me.

 

[Rader]

"Its English and its true"

Now there you go using Spanish on me.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Prometheus]

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 languages 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]

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]

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?

 

[Imparcticle]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.