Is it possible to think without language? Personally, I don't think so because thinking requires your thoughts to take some form.

No.

Assuredly yes, albeit simplistically. Language simply provides us with the means to take a short cut in our thought patterns, shortening the time spent in considering our actions through allowing complex notions to remain complex as opposed to being forced to be simplified, as well allowing for the understanding of certain concepts which would prove intensely elusive in a non-language enviroment.

In order to test this: Think of how you might go to the store and find what you want entirely through usage of picture-thoughts as opposed to word-thoughts. It is difficult but possible. Similarly, all imagining propelled by conscious thought is a type of this thinking without language.

YES

There are many people who don't have language for one reason or another, are you suggesting they do not think? I can recall my early thoughts before I had language and they were in terms of 'feelings' and impressions of what was occurring. I don't speak to my self either when I think, I think now without language. Thinking with language is extraordinarily slow.

NO.

Language comes in many forms- symbols, numbers,letters, you name it. Its basically a representation of pattern. Thinking without language is NOT even thinking at all. Anybody that manages to think without language is chaotic and belongs in the Psychiatry ward.

Have you ever heard of hellen keller

"Helen Keller
the deafblind woman who became a role model for millions of people"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Keller

"Political activities
Helen went on to become a world-famous speaker and author. She is remembered as an advocate for the handicapped, as well as numerous causes. She was a suffragist, a pacifist and a birth control supporter. In 1915 she founded Helen Keller International, a non-profit organization for preventing blindness. Helen and Anne Sullivan traveled all over the world to over 39 countries, and made several trips to Japan, becoming a favorite of the Japanese people. Helen Keller met every U.S. President from Grover Cleveland to Lyndon B. Johnson and was friends with many famous figures including Alexander Graham Bell, Charlie Chaplin and Mark Twain.

Helen Keller was a member of the Socialist Party and actively campaigned and wrote in support of the working classes from 1909 to 1921. She supported Socialist Party candidate Eugene V. Debs in each of his campaigns for the presidency. Her political views were reinforced by visiting workers. In her words, "I have visited sweatshops, factories, crowded slums. If I could not see it, I could smell it."

NO.

Language comes in many forms- symbols, numbers,letters, you name it. Its basically a representation of pattern. Thinking without language is NOT even thinking at all. Anybody that manages to think without language is chaotic and belongs in the Psychiatry ward.


Do you think that babies do not think? How do they learn language in the first place without thinking? They assimilate information, interpret that information, learn and absorb that information, all the time their emotions are providing a commentary of sorts about how they 'feel' about that information and how it is appropriate for them to respond. This is the process of thought.

Hellen keller was blind and deaf but she learned how to talk and better still how to write, she possessed grammatical skills that put me to shame, how did she manage this without seeing a written word or hearing a sentance constructed WITHOUT thinking?

When we feel pain and respond to that pain, we don't need a 'word' to explain to us what happened and how we feel about it, yet a process of understanding takes place and that is 'thought'.

The jury is out:

CHATHA s view:
".....cognitive conception of language which maintains that language is crucially implicated in thought – as well as being used for purposes of communication"


And

my view:
" communicative conception of language which maintains that language is not essentially implicated in thinking, but rather serves only to facilitate the communication of thought"

Latest thinking I think supportive of mine

PINKER 1994

http://verify.fastmail.us/alford/pinker.html

"The constructive Instinct
The positive picture that Pinker gives of the workings of human cognition is believeable, even common-sensical. Everyday experience indicates that people have innate abilities ("modules") for many mental tasks like face recognition and verbal fluency, just as they do for physical tasks. Much of the book consists of fleshing out the wonderful details of the language module, with all its related skills such as the production and decoding of speech.

Pinker quite reasonably emphasizes commonalities rather than differences being innate. This is particularly important given that most of us only notice such innateness when we attempt to overcome God-given aptitudes (often our own) for certain tasks such as mathematics. The modules can be amusingly independent: there are mathematicians who are almost inarticulate, fluent writers who never pick up the pronunciation of foreign words, and so on. The hard-wiring of certain specific talents (and character traits) must be obvious to anyone who has had to teach or to raise a child. It also seems scientifically plausible that natural selection has played a large role in the formation of these skills"

Is it possible to think without language? Personally, I don't think so because thinking requires your thoughts to take some form.

Yes. I do it all the time. I have no internal dialog. It's visual/spatial. Lanuage is just a conversion tool I use to express my thoughts. However, I find it hard to do. But, I have no other way.

That is, if you mean language like English, German, Japanese... ect.

A thought can come in numerous forms. It doens't have to be a "verbal" thought. Some of my thoughts are just a string of pictures or abstract ideas (sort of a low level awareness, really). Also, how can dogs or monkeys think, if they can't speak? Do they simply exist like machines? I think not.


NO.

Language comes in many forms- symbols, numbers,letters, you name it. Its basically a representation of pattern. Thinking without language is NOT even thinking at all. Anybody that manages to think without language is chaotic and belongs in the Psychiatry ward. This is where you are wrong. It is the conveyance of a thought or idea that requires language. Simply having a thought requires no language.

TR: Heller wasn't born blind and deaf; that makes a big difference.

However, people who are born deaf can still think, and they obviously do it in a way which doesn't involve verbal language. The grammar of sign language is completely different, utilising spatial cues in a way that's impossible with linear (spoken) language. It's apparently very difficult for hearing people to learn to sign fluently.

And as Absane shows, even hearing people can use http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picture_thinking

Yea.. very few people are strictly verbal or picture thinking... most are in between. I happen to be on the extreme end of picture/spatial thinking. A blessing and a curse.

TR: Heller wasn't born blind and deaf; that makes a big difference.



She went blind and deaf around 19 months, so her incredible story is no less incredible.

It is incredible, but I'd imagine a lot of critical development can take place in the first 1.5 years. I haven't heard of what happens to people born blind and deaf; presumably they utilise neither language nor pictures for thinking...

It is incredible, but I'd imagine a lot of critical development can take place in the first 1.5 years.

and?

How does that make her case any less effective in demonstrating that we can think without language? You think that after going deaf and blind at 19 months she thought to herself with a full use of grammar/sentances? If she did then she could do more than any able bodied child at that age.

I haven't heard of what happens to people born blind and deaf; presumably they utilise neither language nor pictures for thinking...

Presumably they do what the rest of us do.


ORRRRRRRRR

those that answered No to this question possibly cannot think without language and thus are slower and less intelligent than those that can think without language.

It is incredible, but I'd imagine a lot of critical development can take place in the first 1.5 years. I haven't heard of what happens to people born blind and deaf; presumably they utilise neither language nor pictures for thinking...


They learn Braille and use touch. Most people who are born deaf also find it difficult to learn speech, however, they can be taught sounds using vibrations and touch.

I suppose their concept formation is different; based on touch and texture

They learn Braille and use touch. Most people who are born deaf also find it difficult to learn speech, however, they can be taught sounds using vibrations and touch.

I suppose their concept formation is different; based on touch and texture


Not every blind person in the world has the opportunity to learn braille, and I doubt those that did would then use braille as a means of thinking. (ie thinking in terms of raised dots :) )

I am thinking while I am typing and it does not relate to what I type and as my language skills are occupied with this activity thus the other thoughts are not concerned with language.

meanwhile I found this on web:

"If you are very interested in this kind of cognitive development - it would be an excellent idea to find a copy of "The Wild Boy of Aveyron". Harlan Lane / Paperback / Published 1979. This boy was deprived of social contact from birth and survived for years in the wild. It became apparent that he acted and behaved as an animal. His ability to acquire and use language was irreversibly destroyed, and yet he possessed many characteristics which suggested a high level of intelligence. It's a thought provoking account."

Is it possible to think without language? Personally, I don't think so because thinking requires your thoughts to take some form.
i have been looking for an answer online but so far i have found no conclusive evidence for or against.

but in my opinion yes you can have thought without language.
my reasoning is thus:
the earliest cavemen had no language but yet they were able to hunt and trap and snare their own food, these actions require reasoned thought.

i have been looking for an answer online but so far i have found no conclusive evidence for or against.

but in my opinion yes you can have thought without language.
my reasoning is thus:
the earliest cavemen had no language but yet they were able to hunt and trap and snare their own food, these actions require reasoned thought.


I found arguments for an against also, which makes me think that some think without language more than others as for me, I require no proof. I know I think without language (not always of course) and Absane says the same. So maybe some do and some don't?

In order to resolve the discrepancies in details which now lead to disagreement, we should do well to define (even in general terms) what is meant by 'think'.

It is very clear to me, from the evidence of feral children, that the answer is a resounding yes. There is anthropological evidence for this, including the material theoryofrelativity suggested (but I am not familiar myself with the book).

but in my opinion yes you can have thought without language.
my reasoning is thus:
the earliest cavemen had no language but yet they were able to hunt and trap and snare their own food, these actions require reasoned thought.

Does a venus flytrap think?

Does a venus flytrap think? Only conscious beings are able to think. Anything that has a conscious awareness is capable of thought. Not necessarily involving language, or pictures, or anything. Thought can come in abstract forms free from any human-defined structure.

Only conscious beings are able to think. Anything that has a conscious awareness is capable of thought.

Can there be any empirically verifiable evidence of this? And if not, is there any line of reasoning to support this? It is difficult to say where consciousness begins and where consciousness is not. I would argue that it is not demonstrable that anyone you know of is conscious (especially in the sense in which you understand the word).

You might be thinking anyhow that this is a philosopher's stubborness so I will ask you: do you know which physiognomic faculties are related to giving you your conscious knowledge. It is safe to say the computer screen has no part in this but I am even more curious to know what you think. Anyway, my point was that venus flytraps can also "trap and snare their own food" and yet most people (very anthropocentrically, I must add) do not consider this to be an example of 'reasoned thought'. That is fine with me. But where is the empirical justification for such an assumption? Is there any, apart from anthropocentrism?

For if we say that it's an axiom that 'only conscious beings are able to think' (so that I don't question it), you have not specified any criterion for determining conscious beings and so how can we then know which beings are "capable of thought" according to the axiom?

This is a topic for invert nexus

These are some theories on the effect of language on thought

* The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis in linguistics states that the structure of one's mother-tongue influences the way one's mind perceives the world. It has found at best very limited experimental support, at least in its strong form. For instance, a study showing that speakers of languages lacking a subjunctive mood such as Chinese experience difficulty with hypothetical problems has been discredited. However, another study has shown that subjects in memory tests are more likely to remember a given color if their mother language includes a word for that color.

* According to Cognitive therapy, founded by Aaron T. Beck, our emotions and behavior are caused by our internal dialogue. We can change ourselves by learning to challenge and refute our own thoughts, especially a number of specific mistaken thought patterns called "cognitive distortions". Cognitive therapy has been found to be effective by empirical studies.

* In behavioral economics, according to experiments said to support to the theoretical availability heuristic, people believe more probable events that are more vividly described than those which were not. Simple experiments asking people to imagine something led them to believe it to be more likely. The mere exposure effect may also be relevant to propagandistic repetition like the Big Lie. According to prospect theory, people make different economic choices based on how the matter is framed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_and_thought

Theoryofrelativity:

"There are many people who don't have language for one reason or another, are you suggesting they do not think? I can recall my early thoughts before I had language and they were in terms of 'feelings' and impressions of what was occurring. I don't speak to my self either when I think, I think now without language. Thinking with language is extraordinarily slow. "

Precisely.

Chatha:

"Language comes in many forms- symbols, numbers,letters, you name it. Its basically a representation of pattern. Thinking without language is NOT even thinking at all. Anybody that manages to think without language is chaotic and belongs in the Psychiatry ward. "

You cannot think in terms pruely of images? Of sensations? Of imagings?

Theoryofrelativity:

Excellent commentary on Helen Keller and on new cognitive research.

RubiksMaster :

"A thought can come in numerous forms. It doens't have to be a "verbal" thought. Some of my thoughts are just a string of pictures or abstract ideas (sort of a low level awareness, really). Also, how can dogs or monkeys think, if they can't speak? Do they simply exist like machines? I think not."

Precisely.

"This is where you are wrong. It is the conveyance of a thought or idea that requires language. Simply having a thought requires no language. "

Yes.

Zephyr:

"It is incredible, but I'd imagine a lot of critical development can take place in the first 1.5 years. I haven't heard of what happens to people born blind and deaf; presumably they utilise neither language nor pictures for thinking... "

If they cannot think, how then can they communicate concepts and produce original thoughts in a way that is demonstratable?

samcdkey:

"I suppose their concept formation is different; based on touch and texture"

Precisely.

Theoryofrelativity:

""If you are very interested in this kind of cognitive development - it would be an excellent idea to find a copy of "The Wild Boy of Aveyron". Harlan Lane / Paperback / Published 1979. This boy was deprived of social contact from birth and survived for years in the wild. It became apparent that he acted and behaved as an animal. His ability to acquire and use language was irreversibly destroyed, and yet he possessed many characteristics which suggested a high level of intelligence. It's a thought provoking account.""

Fascinating.

leopold99:

"but in my opinion yes you can have thought without language.
my reasoning is thus:
the earliest cavemen had no language but yet they were able to hunt and trap and snare their own food, these actions require reasoned thought. "

Assuredly. As must animals have thought for their actions.

§outh§tar:

"Does a venus flytrap think? "

Is the action of closing its mouth reflexive?

That being said, as all live creatures have sensory preception, all must be able to think in part. Sensory preception being the foundation of thought and in order to react to it, one must have a type of consciousness, even if a dim one.

§outh§tar:

"Can there be any empirically verifiable evidence of this? And if not, is there any line of reasoning to support this? It is difficult to say where consciousness begins and where consciousness is not. I would argue that it is not demonstrable that anyone you know of is conscious (especially in the sense in which you understand the word)."

Indeed one can justify this statement through recourse to the fact that, were it not for conscious awareness, the capacity to have thought would not be present. For what is is an unperceived thought? And what is consciousness but the internal perception of thoughts both created and molded by itself and awareness of external stimuli as presented to the mind through the senses? And in the absence of such conscious awareness, do not we find the absence of a mind?

"You might be thinking anyhow that this is a philosopher's stubborness so I will ask you: do you know which physiognomic faculties are related to giving you your conscious knowledge. It is safe to say the computer screen has no part in this but I am even more curious to know what you think. Anyway, my point was that venus flytraps can also "trap and snare their own food" and yet most people (very anthropocentrically, I must add) do not consider this to be an example of 'reasoned thought'. That is fine with me. But where is the empirical justification for such an assumption? Is there any, apart from anthropocentrism?"

Was it necessary for Benjamin Franklin to understand the nature of electrons in order to discover the electrical qualities of lightning? Or did the ancients require a thorough understanding of photon exchange in order to appreciate the magnetic properties of the lodestone, or of the rubbing of amber with cloth? Indeed, were the physics of combustion necessary to be understood by primitive man in order that they might make fire? Surely not. Similarly, we can evaluate many aspects of consciousness without understanding the workings of the brain. For we are, if anything, more intimately experienced with consciousness than anything else, by virtue of primarily being conscious entities. For what is man but his mind? What is personhood by a mind?

"For if we say that it's an axiom that 'only conscious beings are able to think' (so that I don't question it), you have not specified any criterion for determining conscious beings and so how can we then know which beings are "capable of thought" according to the axiom? "

I propose that all beings with sensory preception are by necessity conscious. For if a being has sense, then there must be a senser, as it were, to appreciate the information and to act upon it. This can be found, moreover, in any volitional action, that cannot be accorded to a reflex by virtue of its complicated nature, nor to the following of the laws of nature. Even a rock may fall, but only a creature may jump.

If you can observe, you can think. If you can't think without language, clear a few things up for me. How can dogs be loyal? How can bears, cheetahs, and every animal that hunts tactically hunt? How can an orangutan use leaves as a cup? How can the red squirrel comprehend the process of making maple syrup? I'll conttinue when these are answered.

anyone bilingual? I think its a prime example of thinking in a pre-linguistic language, when you have more than one mother tongue, and still experience that tip of the tongue feeling. If you actually think in a spoken languange, how is it possible that you have a thought that you can't describe in words?

I'm not sure if that makes sense, it works for me though.

anyone bilingual? I think its a prime example of thinking in a pre-linguistic language, when you have more than one mother tongue, and still experience that tip of the tongue feeling. If you actually think in a spoken languange, how is it possible that you have a thought that you can't describe in words?

I'm not sure if that makes sense, it works for me though.

I'm not bilingual. However, as I have said I am a pure 100% visual thinker. I have the problem with not having the right word to describe something. I can "see" a connection between two things and I know exactly what kind of word I need.. but I don't know it. And I wouldn't know how to find it. Sometimes I get lucky and can make a work around but it's hard enough writing things for various things. I am a notoriously slow typer. I'll type half of a sentence and stop because I cannot think of how to finish it.

Pure verbal thinkers should not really have a problem with finding the words they need to say something, but they might have a problem with seeing the possibilities of a thought.

However, most people are a mix of the two. You'll find very few verbal-only thinkers and very few visual-only thinkers. We are born visual thinkers but language and schooling take away from that mode of thought... so most people end up being a mix of the two.

Indeed one can justify this statement through recourse to the fact that, were it not for conscious awareness, the capacity to have thought would not be present. For what is is an unperceived thought? And what is consciousness but the internal perception of thoughts both created and molded by itself and awareness of external stimuli as presented to the mind through the senses? And in the absence of such conscious awareness, do not we find the absence of a mind?

I hope you will see the seriousness of the circularity here. 'Without consciousness there would be no thought, and without thought, there would be no consciousness (in the sense that there would be no knowledge of consciousness)'

I must also be quick to point out that your last question about the absence of a mind follows from your circularity. What exactly are your criterion for determining the absence of a mind, for example?

Was it necessary for Benjamin Franklin to understand the nature of electrons in order to discover the electrical qualities of lightning? Or did the ancients require a thorough understanding of photon exchange in order to appreciate the magnetic properties of the lodestone, or of the rubbing of amber with cloth? Indeed, were the physics of combustion necessary to be understood by primitive man in order that they might make fire? Surely not. Similarly, we can evaluate many aspects of consciousness without understanding the workings of the brain. For we are, if anything, more intimately experienced with consciousness than anything else, by virtue of primarily being conscious entities. For what is man but his mind? What is personhood by a mind?

I want to assure you that the parallels from Franklin and ancient man are unrelated to the mind: what is empirically observable in our milieu we find to be distinct from ourselves and our perceptions (empiricism again) are reinforced by the like observations of others. This is not the same with consciousness. No one but yourself (even you will agree) is experiencing what you are conscious of (at least let us assume so) or in other words, sharing your qualia. (Either way, even if someone was to be doing so, this would be unverifiable by definition). A neurophysiologist might uncover properties of the brain (or the mind, whatever that means) but his dependence is on empiricism and his weapons are the criterion of the scientific method. No one who has read my posts has of yet provided any of the criteria I asked for. What faculties, such as those of taste, touch, smell, etc, do we find to aid us in 'evaluating the many aspects of consciousness'? Are you aware of any? I suspect you are not. On what then, do tell, (save for speculation and assumption), can we base any positive statements about consciousness? The fact that others merely claim to be conscious? Absurd. The word is not given a meaning - why assume all parties are talking about the same thing?

Now that I have demonstrated that your premise that 'we are primarily conscious entities' is without empirical foundation (I suspect it is an assumption taken for granted), let us inspect in what manner a man might evaluate his own consciousness. In order to evaluate your consciousness, you must first know you are conscious (I think you will agree). What criteria do we use for this? Thought, you say. Let us accept that thought is ineffable; its process and quality cannot be described. This is a safe axiom.

Now I must ask you again, since you insist it is possible to 'evaluate' consciousness (I must admit that I don't know what exactly you meant by that phrase): Outside of thought, what 'reliable', 'intimate', empirical (or whatever you characterize it) way is there to 'evaluate' consciousness? I suspect you know of none. In that case, let us then infer that for every individual thought is the only nexus to consciousness. I might stop here and point out that we have reached the same brutal circularity of above but I am still curious and wish to explore the flaws of such reasoning.

I will ask you a few very simple questions. Judging from the confidence in thought and consciousness in your previous post, I expect they will be very easy for you to answer.

1) How do you know that you think?

If you say by thinking then you have reached circularity. If you say by consciousness then you have again reached circularity since you yourself have accepted that without thinking we cannot know we are conscious. If there is a third alternative, please state it. However, I suspect you know of none.

2) Let us assume that the circularity I highlighted briefly in response to the first part of your reply is not actually a fallacy (ie. I made a mistake). That is, there is no circularity in the two statements: You have to be conscious in order to think and Without thinking we cannot know we are conscious. I believe the latter statement is difficult for anyone to justify (although you are free to try to) but I must ask you to justify the former statement. Just how do you know that you have to be conscious in order to think?

I propose that all beings with sensory preception are by necessity conscious. For if a being has sense, then there must be a senser, as it were, to appreciate the information and to act upon it. This can be found, moreover, in any volitional action, that cannot be accorded to a reflex by virtue of its complicated nature, nor to the following of the laws of nature. Even a rock may fall, but only a creature may jump.

Do you then accept that a venus flytrap is 'by necessity conscious'? Perhaps not; perhaps you are an anthropocentrist ;), and mean to say that only touch, taste, smell etc are to be considered 'senses'. In either case there is the ignominious contradiction involved in calling 'touch' a sense when speaking of humans but not in speaking of the venus flytrap.

Let us backout of your axiom "I propose that all beings with sensory preception are by necessity conscious" since this may lead to an uncomfortable (or merely a misanthropic) conclusion. Let us then ignore it and allow that volitional actions are properties of conscious beings. Of course, this leads to absurdity in the case of quadriplegia or some defect of the motor system. I must then ask you a very simple question:

What are your criterion for distinguishing 'volitional action'?

Note: This part of the exploration was meant to examine the notion that a venus flytrap might not be conscious. Let us instead accept that it is. That is, as you say, it has a 'dim consciousness'. I must ask you two very simple questions:

By what criterion can we distinguish gradations of consciousness such as the dimness of the faculty in venus flytraps as compared to 'normal/regular' consciousness in 'us'? And why?

I am also curious to know what criteria you distinguish between 'reflexive' and 'volitional' activity (you have implied a difference).

I think the reason some are having trouble accepting you can think without language is because as humans we have language. We have language thus we use it, so perhaps for some the natural ability to think without it has diminshed some what or they are unaware it takes place.

If we as humans were raised from birth wearing roller blades we may well be unaware of the process of walking on our own two feet, but that does not make it any less possible.

I can recall a series of thoughts from childhood before I had the language to describe it as I can describe it to you now. I require language to describe the story but not to feel it inside my head.

My father has made me a swing in the garden, it hangs from the branch of a tree. He has made one for my brother also. I am annoyed, very annoyed. My father who I consider stupid at this point has made me a swing too high for me to get on by myself and the seat is too wide for me to swing myself as I cannot bend my legs at the knee (you can tell I was very small!) thus I am frustarted as I always need help to enjoy this swing amnd help is not often available. My reaction to this swing at the time was mostly likely tears. My father would not have understood them and I could not explain them. The fact I can recall us this some 34 yrs+ later is that I was thinking about it all at the time, there would have been some rudements of language but not enough to convey my 'thoughts' on this matter verbally.

You do not need language to experience something, interpret it and forumlate (process of thinking) a response to it.

Language is not required for that.

If you do not consider that a process of thought can take place without using a learned language then you are perhaps missing a tool that will greatly assist you in 'thinking ' quicker, reading quicker and analysing data and problem solving quicker.

I admit that I am often accused of solving problems or knowing answers without giving any perceived time (as perceived by them)to consider the question. Yet when called upon to do so I can 100% explain where my answer came from and the problem solving that took place. What befuddles people is the speed, moments, as oppose to minutes or hours. This is perhaps becuase I do think without language and thus the process of problem solving is not slowed down by having to use syntax and grammar etc when thinking about things.


Try it.

(Impressive contributions from prince James and southstar - note from considerable research on this yesterday the jury really is out! hence IMO some recognise they can and do and some don't recognise they can and either don't or are unaware that they do )

Doesn't the fact that we can learn language suggest that we can think without using language?

Doesn't the fact that we can learn language suggest that we can think without using language?

of course

I only think with language when 'talking to myself' in my head by way of company. The rest of the time it is silent and rapid.

Theoryofrelativity,

A lot of this I already went over in a 12+ page debate on consciousness I had with water and invert_nexus and a host of other good posters a year ago (when sciforums used to be exciting!). So I'm pretty familiar with a lot of the assertions involved and how to shoot them down. ;)

I'll bring out some of my links on feral children later tomorrow, hopefully. The phenomenon of feral children is very important in anthropology; it helps us to understand important concepts of self and consciousness and intelligence from a challenging perspective. I might as well since there's little reason for anyone to still insist that thought without language is 'not possible'. So stay tuned for a derailment to consciousness and thought and eventually.. free will!

Theoryofrelativity,

A lot of this I already went over in a 12+ page debate on consciousness I had with water and invert_nexus and a host of other good posters a year ago (when sciforums used to be exciting!). So I'm pretty familiar with a lot of the assertions involved and how to shoot them down. ;)

I'll bring out some of my links on feral children later tomorrow, hopefully. The phenomenon of feral children is very important in anthropology; it helps us to understand important concepts of self and consciousness and intelligence from a challenging perspective. I might as well since there's little reason for anyone to still insist that thought without language is 'not possible'. So stay tuned for a derailment to consciousness and thought and eventually.. free will!

I shall look forward to that.

Meanwhile we are talking manily of what we understand to be conscious thought but what of unconscious thought. Hence your discussion eh on what is consciouness?

The unconscious thought that allows us to formulate a judgement of soemone wihtin an instant by reading various clues, a rapid process of thought without language and that we are not even consciously aware of? Non the less this is a thought process. An unconscious thought process.

Savants can perform mathematical problems without them being aware of any calculations taking place on their part, yet their brains are indeed calculating. The answer does not appear by magic. It is arrived at by a process of thought, subconscious thought.

Some can access this rapid unconscious thought tool and let it speak to their conscious mind no doubt to do with brain chemistry and structure of frontal lobes or something.

Hence your evaluation of what is consciousness and free will and whom is speaking to whom, conscious to subconscious or vice versa. Two minds in one body. Fascinating.

§outh§tar:

"I hope you will see the seriousness of the circularity here. 'Without consciousness there would be no thought, and without thought, there would be no consciousness (in the sense that there would be no knowledge of consciousness)'"

I never said that without thought there'd be no consciousness. Consciousness creates thought, perceives it, but is not thought fully. Consciousness may be considered the awareness of that thought and/or sensory stimuli and the thinker of thought, that is, the computator, the calculator, the concluder, the imaginer, et cetera. An individual thought is a product of the consciousness, but is not consciousness itself.

"I must also be quick to point out that your last question about the absence of a mind follows from your circularity. What exactly are your criterion for determining the absence of a mind, for example?"

To determine whether a mind is present, we must test:

1. For sensory awareness.

2. For actions done which cannot be exchanged for exertion of natural laws. I.E. to jump rather than to fall if disturbed by an exterior force.

Other tests, for intelligence and the like, can be made up, also.

"I want to assure you that the parallels from Franklin and ancient man are unrelated to the mind: what is empirically observable in our milieu we find to be distinct from ourselves and our perceptions (empiricism again) are reinforced by the like observations of others. This is not the same with consciousness. No one but yourself (even you will agree) is experiencing what you are conscious of (at least let us assume so) or in other words, sharing your qualia. (Either way, even if someone was to be doing so, this would be unverifiable by definition). A neurophysiologist might uncover properties of the brain (or the mind, whatever that means) but his dependence is on empiricism and his weapons are the criterion of the scientific method. No one who has read my posts has of yet provided any of the criteria I asked for. What faculties, such as those of taste, touch, smell, etc, do we find to aid us in 'evaluating the many aspects of consciousness'? Are you aware of any? I suspect you are not. On what then, do tell, (save for speculation and assumption), can we base any positive statements about consciousness? The fact that others merely claim to be conscious? Absurd. The word is not given a meaning - why assume all parties are talking about the same thing?"

The Cartesian Theatre has only private showings, you are correct. Our consciousness is not directly open to the experience of others, although if such a thing as mind readers do exist, I wager that it would not be difficult, so long as the mind-reader was relatively accurate, to so conceive a test that it would be irrational to presume he did not have direct access to the mind of the other. If you would like details on some theoretical ones I could think up off hand, do ask. But going past such a thing, let me address your other points.

Now you say that we have no means whereby we can guage, beyond the word of another, whether they are conscious. I counter this via recourse to language. For in language, we find a complex system whereby both concrete and abstract concepts are codified in sound-groupings (and later in writing that symoblizes said sounds) for conveyance. Now clearly, the sounds themselves are meaningless. If I say "tree" and do not speak English, I am not saying anything whatsoever. So the word "tree" holds no inherent meaning in it and to someone that speaks only Mandarin Chinese, it would be as nonsensical as if I barked like a dog. So I cannot induce in another human understanding in a cause-and-effect manner, by saying "tree". However, if that human and I both know the language, I can convey meaning and information to that person through means of language, and in reply, they can do such things as ask questions, bring up relevant topics, et cetera. All this necessitates that something - and this something we call the mind - be present within them that allows them to comprehend what is being said and to react so that it is also comprehendable to me what they are trying to put forth. Indeed, one can even discern such necessity of consciousness in just listening to two other people speak and in seeing their responses to one another by virtue that the exchange is similar and necessitates the same things as the exchange with us. Furthermore, in that such language can be facillitated on the spot, by mimicing the methods by which we learn language (drawing connections to things) and doing such things as, imitating an action of a bird to indicate that we are speaking of "bird" and adding to this "bird", or drawing a picture which shows us in the middle of a certain activity such as eating, that we are capable of so conveying a message that they, in return, following our lead, can convey a message to us back, which is not simply a rehash of what we have done, but can add new information, and can return with insertions in their own language. That is to say, that two people, not knowing one another's language, can create a basic language in order to communicate some vital ideas to one another.

To summarize the above, we find that something we have, language, necessitates minds in others and in ourselves. Unless, of course, you can tell me how such things could result other than as I have here presented?

I would also say that we do not need to directly sense another's consciuosness through one of our five senses in order to come to an awareness of it. For indeed, though the information of such is -conveyed- through the senses, we shall not pinpoint their consciousness say, with sight (we shall not see a person's consciousness), but only through the evaluation of the information which we gain from the senses. That is to say, it is our mind which allows us to realize in others their minds.

I would further like to point out that you have set up consciousness as a prerequisite for empirical knowledge, by virtue of placing empirical knowledge in the "common milieu", where "others" validate what you affirm through their own observations. If we cannot say that they have a means whereby they can do this, how then can we trust what they say? How are we aware that they are not simply lying to us, or simply reacting mindlessly so as to trick us? This would lead to absurdity and also to a crashing down of the scientific method, which apparently, you hold to be fruitful (as do I).

Also, to briefly return to subjectivity of experience, in what way can this said to invalidate it whatsoever? Though others cannot empirically justify the existence of my thoughts, if those thoughts can be manifested and other signs point to the necessity of consciousness, as well as positing that it is irrational to assume that another's perceptions are massively different than one's own if mutual intelligibility is a fact (which language clearly necessitates, as well as your own empirical observation), can not we find the existence of those thoughts nonetheless? That is to say, that we do not have to view those thoughts ourselves?

Moving on...

"Now that I have demonstrated that your premise that 'we are primarily conscious entities' is without empirical foundation (I suspect it is an assumption taken for granted), let us inspect in what manner a man might evaluate his own consciousness. In order to evaluate your consciousness, you must first know you are conscious (I think you will agree). What criteria do we use for this? Thought, you say. Let us accept that thought is ineffable; its process and quality cannot be described. This is a safe axiom.

Now I must ask you again, since you insist it is possible to 'evaluate' consciousness (I must admit that I don't know what exactly you meant by that phrase): Outside of thought, what 'reliable', 'intimate', empirical (or whatever you characterize it) way is there to 'evaluate' consciousness? I suspect you know of none. In that case, let us then infer that for every individual thought is the only nexus to consciousness. I might stop here and point out that we have reached the same brutal circularity of above but I am still curious and wish to explore the flaws of such reasoning. "

You seem to ask more specific questions in a bit, so I shall focus on answering them rather than the above. If within them any questions are lacking, I shall quote the above section where such question is to be found specifically again.

"1) How do you know that you think?

If you say by thinking then you have reached circularity. If you say by consciousness then you have again reached circularity since you yourself have accepted that without thinking we cannot know we are conscious. If there is a third alternative, please state it. However, I suspect you know of none."

You have mistaken. I have not said that without thinking we cannot be aware that we are conscious. One can be, for instance, simply aware of sensory stimuli and still be assured of consciousness, although it would not strike one to question this without thought. It would in essence be an intuitional knowledge that one is conscious of stimuli. Similarly, one have no sensory stimuli at the present moment and be aware of thinking through thoughts.

But how do I know that I am thinking? Though internal perception of thoughts. Thinking necessitates a thinker - a cause, in other words - and as such can either come from oneself or from an external source. If it is from an external source, then my awareness of the thoughts is only an awareness of thought, but at the same time, were one to inquire of this, we'd find that at the very least, the inquiry would have to come from oneself, by virtue of being founded on that perception of thoughts and the resulting thoughts on whether or not that prior thought stemmed from myself.

"2) Let us assume that the circularity I highlighted briefly in response to the first part of your reply is not actually a fallacy (ie. I made a mistake). That is, there is no circularity in the two statements: You have to be conscious in order to think and Without thinking we cannot know we are conscious. I believe the latter statement is difficult for anyone to justify (although you are free to try to) but I must ask you to justify the former statement. Just how do you know that you have to be conscious in order to think?"

As I noted, we could be conscious and not have thoughts at the time, just awareness of sensory perception, but if we had neither, presumably we could not do any other thing the conscious mind can do (such as calculate, imagine, et cetera) and thus we'd be left with no mind to speak of.

But how do I know that we have to be conscious in order to think? Well let us go back one step further first. How do I know we have to be conscious in order to sense? What happens when we "day dream" or "sleep"? Do not we appear, for the most part, open to sensory perception, yet because our "mind is elsewhere", we neither have recollection, nor have any information, from said perceptions? That though we may have had the an physical possibility of such, our mental processes gained nothing from the exchange? That no information was taken? That in essence, we did not experience any sense, and did not then perceive it at all? We may have picked up the signals physically, but our mental capacities did not grasp any information from it. Now, what if thoughts were the same way? Supposing that thoughts could emerge from anything but our own minds (respective to the individual), if we were off thinking of something else, or absorbed in sensory preception, a thought that so occurred at that time would not be registered. That is to say, without a consciousness there to perceive and understand that thought, we'd be left with an occurrence that if it even exists (and there is no proof that it had) would not matter, nor could it be joined with other thoughts in the creation of more complex thoughts and ideas. So in essence, to be engaged in thinking demands a conscious perception of that act, and without consciousness, it could not be intergrated into anything else, least of all a response of any complexity.

"Do you then accept that a venus flytrap is 'by necessity conscious'? Perhaps not; perhaps you are an anthropocentrist , and mean to say that only touch, taste, smell etc are to be considered 'senses'. In either case there is the ignominious contradiction involved in calling 'touch' a sense when speaking of humans but not in speaking of the venus flytrap."

I do indeed accept that all living things - and venus flytraps are, of course, alive - are conscious. Moreover, I do not distinguish betwixt human, animal, or plant sensation. If there are differences, which they may well be, they'd nonetheless all be able to spoken about in the general category of "sensation".

"Let us backout of your axiom "I propose that all beings with sensory preception are by necessity conscious" since this may lead to an uncomfortable (or merely a misanthropic) conclusion. Let us then ignore it and allow that volitional actions are properties of conscious beings. Of course, this leads to absurdity in the case of quadriplegia or some defect of the motor system. I must then ask you a very simple question:"

A paralyzed person may be said to have lost the ability to interact with the world around it, but is nonetheless retains a mental volition at least, of being able to think and various other things, without compulsion from scientific laws which would determine motion, et cetera. That is to say, volition needn't be manifested in the body in this case, although volition manifested in physical. action is a very easy way to test for consciousness. However, it is worthy to note that manifested action needn't be purely in physical action alone Were we to come upon a creature that could communicate telepathically with us, allowing us trigger within us a comprehensible sensation of its thoughts, we could find volition in the action of projecting those thoughts and in their qualities.

"What are your criterion for distinguishing 'volitional action'?"

As noted above, volitional action is those actions which which cannot be explained away by recourse to natural laws acting on an object, nor can be explained by recourse to reflex. Reflexes exhibit a (near) instanteneous and uniform response, usually through the triggering the release of muscle tensing and the like. Getting struck at the right place on one's knee cap is a common way of inducing such a reflex where it is basically a local physical reaction that induces movement.

"Note: This part of the exploration was meant to examine the notion that a venus flytrap might not be conscious. Let us instead accept that it is. That is, as you say, it has a 'dim consciousness'. I must ask you two very simple questions:

By what criterion can we distinguish gradations of consciousness such as the dimness of the faculty in venus flytraps as compared to 'normal/regular' consciousness in 'us'? And why?"

When I spoke of "dim" consciousness, I spoke of a consciousness that might perhaps only exist in one sense, that is to say, which would only know say...tactile sensation, and therefore be able to think in only these terms, and to experience the world only in these terms. On the other hand, we are possessed of five senses which have been augmented by linguistic capacity. This allows for us to have a "brighter" consciousness, by being able to think progressively more complicated thoughts and to think in terms of more than one sense both simulteneously and individually. That is to say, the gradient is to be found in how much information and how complicated that information can be thought of through the sensory awareness.

"I am also curious to know what criteria you distinguish between 'reflexive' and 'volitional' activity (you have implied a difference)."

See above.

Since some of the things you asked in those paragraphs I didn't respond to directly are not present in your subsequent questions, I shall discuss them here...

"In order to evaluate your consciousness, you must first know you are conscious (I think you will agree). What criteria do we use for this? Thought, you say. Let us accept that thought is ineffable; its process and quality cannot be described. This is a safe axiom."

I shall agree that in order to evaluate consciousness we must be aware that we are conscious, however, the thought to question this consciousness is usually not present to us before a situation brings up such a demand from us. That is to say, most of us go ahead in life without ever questioning our consciousness and this is because it is present to us in such a way as to be undoubted, that is, it is directly connected to our awareness, and thus so intuitive that is seems beneath (or above) questioning.

But yes, it is necessary that it is through thought that we evaluate our consciousness, or rather hought put into the action of perception wedded to the awareness of said perception and its information computed (a thought action). That we must also be conscious of our thoughts - though again, we probably would not ask this question normally - can be shown to be fine when we consider the Cartesian "cogito, ergo sum". That is to say, "I think, therefore I am" which, both Descartes and I shall argue, cannot be doubted, for so long as there is both or either thought or sensory awareness, it is necessary that if we are to be aware of that that we must perceive it. In essence, we justify and prove our own existence through being able to perceive anything, both or sense, and to think thought. So obvious is this to us, once again, that we do not even think to question it under normal conditions.

Now as to whether thought is ineffable, this seems to be absurd. For not only is thought knowlable, but it is the very topic of which we discuss now! Were it ineffable, we could not even begin to speak of it. It would be as Kant's presumption of noumenal realities beyond our purview. But as Hegel pointed out, to know of a thing is to know it, and thus if we know of a thought, we know thought. That is, it is most definitely knowable, and therefore not ineffable. Similarly, its qualities are clearly able to be defined through our awareness of it, as well as discussion of its properties and such.

"Now I must ask you again, since you insist it is possible to 'evaluate' consciousness (I must admit that I don't know what exactly you meant by that phrase): Outside of thought, what 'reliable', 'intimate', empirical (or whatever you characterize it) way is there to 'evaluate' consciousness?"

There is no other process outside awareness and thought that gives us insight into our own consciousness.

"In that case, let us then infer that for every individual thought is the only nexus to consciousness. I might stop here and point out that we have reached the same brutal circularity of above but I am still curious and wish to explore the flaws of such reasoning. "

No, not each individual thought, but also in the nature of awareness as noted. Of course if one does not then think about the process of awareness, we'd not come to think about consciousness, though we'd be participating it all the while.

But now, at long last, I pose to you questions not in response to questions you have given me, but one which I think illustrates a point which you have glossed over. That thought is demanded for any consideration of sensory discrepancy.

It is well known that the senses "trick" one. That is to say, distant towers are present to us as smaller than they actually are, as well as a straw appears bent and otherwise distorted in water. Now, supposing sensory awareness had no thought to go along with it to say "hey, that cannot be so..." we'd have no capacity to say that "the straw is not really bent, it is simply an illusion produced by the qualities of the water to magnify the image so that it appears to be bent to our perceptions", or that "because the tower at such a distant composes only a part of our field of vision, it appears to us smaller than when our proximity to it allows it to taker up a larger field of our vision". That is to say, without thought, we'd have to believe the moon really does disappear behind our fingers, and that towers grow to meet us. That we can decipher the discrepancies demonstrates the capacity for conscious thought.

I shall look forward to that.

Meanwhile we are talking manily of what we understand to be conscious thought but what of unconscious thought. Hence your discussion eh on what is consciouness?

The unconscious thought that allows us to formulate a judgement of soemone wihtin an instant by reading various clues, a rapid process of thought without language and that we are not even consciously aware of? Non the less this is a thought process. An unconscious thought process.

Savants can perform mathematical problems without them being aware of any calculations taking place on their part, yet their brains are indeed calculating. The answer does not appear by magic. It is arrived at by a process of thought, subconscious thought.

Some can access this rapid unconscious thought tool and let it speak to their conscious mind no doubt to do with brain chemistry and structure of frontal lobes or something.

Hence your evaluation of what is consciousness and free will and whom is speaking to whom, conscious to subconscious or vice versa. Two minds in one body. Fascinating.

I think this allows us to come to out first simple definition of thought:

thought is a change in mental image. in application, we might say that a person who sees the same thing in his head no matter what cannot/is not thinking visually. Note how this applies to the comatose, but not to one who is dreaming. This is consistent with the general distinction. Similar applications can be made to he who hears the same sound/no sound in his head continuously; he is not thinking auditorily. But when the mental image changes from 3 to 4 to 7 or from 'is 4723 a prime number' to 'yes (I'm making that up!)', we can see how that is thinking.
The only objection to this I can think of is to ask whether sodium chloride mixed with pyloric acid results in a solution with a ph of 2 (I'm making that up too!). In this case, anyone without any clue whatsoever will hit a blank (ie. there is nothing to think about). The same thing with having to verify a proof of Fermat's last theorem etc. When there is no mental content to go over, the mental image does not change. It might change to an 'I don't know' (note how this is a verbalization of what is already an understood feeling) but there is no experience of the mental image going from something reviewed in an advanced chemistry book to a 'yes' or 'no'. This is a simple confirmation of what Hume remarked:

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

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

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

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

The simple answer is NO. Its like asking a computer to process data without any form of interface or sofware, its just not going to WORK. Language is not a simple thing to describe, its the basic vortex of our everyday life from waking up, eating breakfast in the morning, solving crossword puzzles, to scratching your bum. Language is what prevents the psysiological system from crashing,.i.e us from running crazy. It keeps things in order inside our brian even to the very smallest enviroment and unimaginable detail, in fact we are unawrae 90% of the time how much communication is going on simultenously in our body..we take it for granted. A psychiatric patient is someone who has fallen from this spectrum of cordination, and even though he or she may still develop thoughts, cannot "realize" or put together these thoughts. Language is basically communication between two or more entities, be it neurons, symbols, or signals, even being able to see is a form of communication. You simply have to communicate for anything to work much less develop a though.

Chatha - what you call language, I'd call 'thought' and obviously (?) no-one can think without thought. Whereas if you restrict 'language' to things like English, Japanese etc. it becomes obvious people can think without language, since mathematical symbols belong to no natural language. But symbolic mathematical thinking is still linear compared to geometric visualisation ... I think there are likely many possible ways to think.

even being able to see is a form of communication.

Wow.

Not even merely seeing but being able to see. :eek:

Without language you cannot really think per se (complex thought), but you can feel. Once mental symbology is applied (in any format) to these feelings, thoughts may be generated.

Does a venus flytrap think?
do they lead their prey into traps?
or do they just sit there like cobwebs?

I think they release attractive chemicals. Do cobwebs release chemicals...?

leopold99, i fail to see your point. Perhaps if you could be more explicit? :)

What are we defining language as at this point? Also if an venus flytrap relaeses attractive chemicals, then is it feasable that they may communicate, on a very low level, with such chemicals?

Without language you cannot really think per se (complex thought), but you can feel. Once mental symbology is applied (in any format) to these feelings, thoughts may be generated
Right here is where you are swaying away from the fact. Think about it, what makes you feel a pinch? Skin cells are excited and send signals to affiliated nervous receptors, which in turn alarm you of of what's going on. For there to be any communication there has to be two or more entities working together, by this I mean one sending and one recieving- thats basically the essence of language, which also embodies protocols, i.e english, mathematics, numbers, symbols e.t.c. It is entirely impossible to generate thought without a form of communication. Thoughts are still pictures in the mind, and the mind is subject to the external enviroment, human babies will not make it if there was no external enviroment, and more imprtantly if there were no means to communicate with it.

Chatha you not arguing that you cannot think without language you are arguing semantics, you are calling the process of thought language, fine then we agree. The definition of language though as intended by the thread starter is as in grammatical verbal communication - English, Spanish, Japanese etc.

There is no requirement to have language skills (as defined above) to think non at all.

I wonder if being bilingual or multilingual would have an effect on the thought process

I wonder if being bilingual or multilingual would have an effect on the thought process

Only in that when they are using language to think they may think in one or both languages. Maybe a mix. My daughter has her own language as well as English, always coming out with made up words to represent what she is thinking. Hence I guess the origin of language, attempting to communicate what is already taking place in our minds.

Here is an interesting point of view that suggests that language may shape thought.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6303

Language may shape human thought – suggests a counting study in a Brazilian tribe whose language does not define numbers above two.

Hunter-gatherers from the Pirahã tribe, whose language only contains words for the numbers one and two, were unable to reliably tell the difference between four objects placed in a row and five in the same configuration, revealed the study.

Gordon says this is the first convincing evidence that a language lacking words for certain concepts could actually prevent speakers of the language from understanding those concepts.

However, scientists are far from a consensus. Feigenson points out that there could be other reasons, aside from pure language, why the Pirahã could not distinguish accurately for higher numbers including not being used to dealing with large numbers or set such tasks.

http://www.usingenglish.com/speaking-out/universal-grammar.html

"Jelle Zuidema's essay "The Origin of Language Debate" contains a discussion about the theories put forward by Noam Chomsky and Steven Pinker (who provided the basis for the now widely accepted classical theory on the origin and development of language skills), and those provided by Luc Steels and Brian MacWhinney who attempt to propose an alternative theory.

The Arguments of Steels and MacWhinney
The summary of the arguments provided by Steels and MacWhinney towards the Origin of Language debate are as follows:

1. there is no universal grammar
<- no universal grammar is found, universals result from cognitive and physical constraints
2. innateness is not self-evident
<- alternative explanations exist
3. there is no language organ
<- no grammar to be content of organ, language areas are also involved in other cognitive tasks
4. there are no language genes
<- there's no organ to code for, universal location emerges from selforganization
5. modern languages evolve similarily to their origins
<- language creation can be witnessed everyday
6. language emerged from cultural evolution
<- the same processes produce complexity elsewhere, simulating experiments show emergence of protolanguage
7. language emerged from embodiment
<- embodied cognitive processes shape language understanding

Some Comments on the Origin of Language debate
I find it hard to agree with many of the points made in the arguments listed above. There follows a disection of the given arguments:

Point 1 - There is no universal grammar
As a believer that language is the driving force of thought, I can't see the cognitive constraints as being separable from the notion of universal grammar. The basic concepts underlying language are unlikely to be the mere embodiments of concepts shared with non-linguistic animals. Can the notion of number be equated with what the hunter sees when approaching prey?

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

Point 3 - There is no language organ
While the location and nature of the LAD (Language Acquisition Device) remain little understood or even identified, language is cerebral, so it is contained within one organ, the brain, about which we know very little.

Ponit 4 - There are no language genes

This is only true if number 3 is, which I find questionable. The fact that the human genome has been published does not mean that we have grasped how it all works, especially diachronically.

Point 5 - Modern languages evolve similarily to their origins

Language creation is not synonymous with creating an entire language. The fact that we can create new words or forms is not the same as the leap of thought that generated the first concepts.

Point 6 - Language emerged from cultural evolution

The two are so linked as to be simultaneous. Production of 'complexity' is not the proof that language can be forcibly 'evolved'.

Point 7 - Language emerged from embodiment

There is no consensus on the relationship between language and thought; I, like many others, believe the opposite of what is being argued here.

This does not sound worked out sufficiently to me.

The Bibliography given in the essay is as follows:


Pinker 1994 Steven Pinker, "The Language Instinct", 1994, New York: William Morrow

Williams 1951 F.C. Williams, T. Kilburn and G.C. Tootill, "Universal high-speed digial computers: a small-scale experimental machine", in: The proceedings of the institution of electrical engineers, vol. 98, part II, no. 61, February 1951

MacWhinney 1998a Brian MacWhinney, "An emergentist view on grammatical development" (abstract), in: 1998 AAAS Annual Meeting - Program Book

MacWhinney 1998b Brian MacWhinney, "The emergence of language", in: B. MacWhinney (ed.), The emergence of language, forthcoming, New Jersey: Erlbaum

Steels 1996 Luc Steels, "Synthesising the origins of language and meaning using co-evolution, self-organisation and level formation", in: J. Hurford (ed.), Evolution of Human Language, 1997, Edinburgh: E. University Press

Kosso 1995 Peter Kosso, "Reading the book of nature"

You can read the original essay here: Jelle Zuidema - The Origin of Language Debate



One Last Comment on Finite Language
While I believe language is finite, it is also inexhaustible. A Google search for language produced 33.9 million results. The search English language reduced it to 3.45 million results. Searching for the words together (ie: "English language") rather than anywhere in the text halved this figure and adding the took the score down to 737,000.

The falloff with such common words shows that finite language doesn't mean that there is any likelihood of reaching the end of language. The numbers are astronomical and incalculable, but that does not affect the theory. A bit like the comments above."

anyone bilingual? I think its a prime example of thinking in a pre-linguistic language, when you have more than one mother tongue, and still experience that tip of the tongue feeling. If you actually think in a spoken languange, how is it possible that you have a thought that you can't describe in words? I'm not sure if that makes sense, it works for me though.For a long time, when people study a new language, they think in their native language and translate. You have truly mastered a language when you think in it. The way to tell whether you think in a language is whether people speak it in your dreams. I startled the crap out of myself one night by having a dream in which people were speaking Portuguese. Not one of the four languages in which I consider myself even remotely "fluent." But when awake I had to accept the fact that despite my limited vocabulary, I can think in Portuguese.

So anyone who is in the early stage of studying a language can address this question by noticing how you form sentences. Do they come into your head in that language, just much more slowly than in your native language? No, of course not, they come into your head in your native language and you try your best to translate them in real time. You may not be conscious of the verbal nature of your thoughts most of the time, but attempting to speak a second language highlights this nature.

That said, certain people have well developed abilities (or perhaps born abilities) to think non-verbally. Musicians are the obvious example. (Using purely instrumental compositions for the sake of the discussion.) We can play songs in our heads, compose songs, deconstruct them, pick out the notes of the chords and the beats of the rhythm, transpose them, reorchestrate them on different instruments, even rearrange them into different rhythmic and harmonic patterns. All with no words or just occasional words to remember for the notes we'll write about them later.

People who work in the visual arts and crafts are the same way, and so are dancers. The point is that they're thinking about things that have a strong non-verbal component.

You all do it when you think about being amorous with your lover. You may imagine the conversation that goes with the activity, but the activity itself is well thought without words.

The point is that so much of what humans have to think about is abstract and the existence of the thoughts depends on words in which to create them. Language is arbuably our most important achievement, the one on which everything we've done in the subsequent 70,000 years (reasonable estimate but just an estimate) depended. Given that we spend so much of our lives engaged in verbal communication, it stands to reason that most of the thoughts of most of the people most of the time will be in that form.

But not all of them.

*******

Anyone who's watched a parrot carefully figure out how to dismantle his cage knows that other animals besides humans think.

Here is an interesting point of view that suggests that language may shape thought.

.

There's a very easy answer to that argument and quite simply it is, how did language evolve without thought. Meanwhile, there is no denying aquisition of a language is helpful. Re that tribe, I have seen a tribe with only two toes (the entire tribe) this is not evidence that the rest of the world should have only two toes. Vandoma tribe.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vadoma

Alright.
Time for me to dive in.
Once more into the breach.

Last things first.
(Actually first things first, but it's funny how things circle. Eh, Southstar?)

The definition of language though as intended by the thread starter is as in grammatical verbal communication - English, Spanish, Japanese etc.

I disagree. I don't think the word 'language' was defined in the opening post any better than the other key word 'think'.
This is always the problem with these types of threads. And the problems always manifest in identical ways. Just as we have here.
You're defining language as you see fit. Chatha is defining it as he sees fit.
Same goes with thought. The concept is used in such a general fashion that it is taken to mean practically any form of mental activity whatsoever. Fine for the layman, but not for any application where precision is sought after.


Let me interject my definitions of thought and language here.

Thought is the tricky one. And one which I won't even claim to have a constructive or realistic definition for. However, I think that if the definition were taken in its loosest sense which Prince James seems to find acceptable (at least he seems to draw the line at Venus Flytraps...), then the opening question becomes so uninteresting as to be pointless. Of course mental activity is possible without thought. Derp.

However, I look at the question in an interesting sort of way. That is, one of precision (as much as possible in this complex field at this early date). And I think that the opening poster had such an interpretation in mind as well. After all, why bother with boring questions, yes?

Therefore, I find that the definition for thought should be stringently applied. I have toyed with the thought of introducing some sort of weakly conjectured categorization of types of thought just for the sake of discussion. Something along the lines of unconscious thought/conscious-objective thought/conscious-abstract thought. But, the tendency in such a case is to continue adding new categories infinitum. Visual thought. Emotive thought. Getting home from a drunk thought. Etc.
This is a goal of mine, but one which I am not yet ready to undertake.
But, the definition MUST be narrowed down for the question to become interesting.

There is an obvious difference in thought between animals and humans. In these discussions, it's generally settled upon that there's a sliding scale of intelligence that increases in complexity that reaches a pinnacle (for now) in humans. But there's always an agreement that humans are capable of a type of thought that is unlikely to take place in even the highest of this sliding scale beneath us.

Abstract thought.

A chimpanzee knows nothing of 'justice'. Man does. This is the difference. (Note: "Justice" is just an abstract concept taken at random.)

This is where I should place the stringent definition.
That thought which is capable of shedding ties with objective reality to such a degree that a term such as 'justice' can be elaborated upon.
This is my definition of thought.
(Note: 'Justice' is merely a verbal example. There are other examples of abstract conceptualization that would suffice that do not fall in the verbal realm.)

Arguments?



Next:
On language.

Language is really quite simple.
Language is a system of symbols that refers to objective reality at its base. But also (and more importantly in my opinion) self-refers to other symbols within the framework of symbols.
Language is a complex self-supporting network of symbols.



Now.
I expect an argument to be, right off the bat, "You've defined the problems so as to ensure the answer is that language and thought are one!"
And you're right.
But, I think that this is a far more interesting interpretation than the previously sloppily defined interpretations which have been kicked about so far.
The devil is in the details, you know.
The question, "Is thought possible without language?" is merely a pathway.
The road goes ever on and on.


I have much more to say. And, in fact, have written pages on this subject. But I think it's best to start slow.
Lest I chase off my prey.
Muaha!!

Here is more interesting stuff

Does language shape thought? Mandarin and English speakers' conceptions of time.


Does the language you speak affect how you think about the world? This question is taken up in three experiments. English and Mandarin talk about time differently--English predominantly talks about time as if it were horizontal, while Mandarin also commonly describes time as vertical. This difference between the two languages is reflected in the way their speakers think about time. In one study, Mandarin speakers tended to think about time vertically even when they were thinking for English (Mandarin speakers were faster to confirm that March comes earlier than April if they had just seen a vertical array of objects than if they had just seen a horizontal array, and the reverse was true for English speakers). Another study showed that the extent to which Mandarin-English bilinguals think about time vertically is related to how old they were when they first began to learn English. In another experiment native English speakers were taught to talk about time using vertical spatial terms in a way similar to Mandarin. On a subsequent test, this group of English speakers showed the same bias to think about time vertically as was observed with Mandarin speakers. It is concluded that (1) language is a powerful tool in shaping thought about abstract domains and (2) one's native language plays an important role in shaping habitual thought (e.g., how one tends to think about time) but does not entirely determine one's thinking in the strong Whorfian sense.

So language may determine abstract thiking more than discrete.
What do you think?

edit: invert_nexus was faster!

Invert :) this is incorrect for starters:

"Language is really quite simple.
Language is a system of symbols that refers to objective reality at its base. But also (and more importantly in my opinion) self-refers to other symbols within the framework of symbols.
Language is a complex self-supporting network of symbols."

Language is considerably more complex than mere symbols.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language

"Properties of language
Languages are not just sets of symbols. They also often conform to a rough grammar, or system of rules, used to manipulate the symbols. While a set of symbols may be used for expression or communication, it is primitive and relatively unexpressive, because there are no clear or regular relationships between the symbols.

For example, imagine going on a walk with a person who only knows individual symbols. If you saw a dog, he might say, "Dog not scare" or "Not scare dog". Although any English speaker would have some notion of what he was talking about, the relationship between the words is unclear. Is he scared of dogs? Or just that dog? Or does he want to scare the dog off? Does he think the dog is scared? But if you respond, "I'm not scared of dogs", the relationship between "dog" and "scare" is quite apparent and hence the meaning of the utterance.

Another property of language is the arbitrariness of the symbols. Any symbol can be mapped onto any concept (or even onto one of the rules of the grammar). For instance, there is nothing about the Spanish word nada itself that forces Spanish speakers to use it to mean nothing. That is the meaning all Spanish speakers have memorized for that sound pattern. But for Croatian speakers nada means "hope"."



Additionally who said chimps do not understand justice? they understand warnings. They will repremand thier young for fooling around as will dogs, cats etc..with a 'cuff' as a warning. A dog who has knowingly done something wrong (eaten dads dinner) will skulk into a corner when dad walks into the kitchen as he 'knows' there is a repercussion for what he just did.

Sam re that how we think about time, time is something we are taught and so we will think whatever we are taught on that matter rightly or wrongly, without that teaching we may observe that the sun and moon rise and fall and make other observations re seasons etc, other than that we probably would not think about it at all. It is our civilised world that teaches us to 'mind' time.

Language is considerably more complex than mere symbols.
...
"Properties of language
Languages are not just sets of symbols. They also often conform to a rough grammar, or system of rules, used to manipulate the symbols. While a set of symbols may be used for expression or communication, it is primitive and relatively unexpressive, because there are no clear or regular relationships between the symbols.

Ok.
My bad.
I tend to take certain things for granted and the grammar and syntax and the rest of the rules are implied in the network I spoke of.

They're the space between the symbols.
The interconnections.

However, I can see how my analogy was too simple. I had actually written a much longer treatment, but decided for simplicity for starters... And I went too simple.


So.

We're in accord with the network of symbols (that refer to both objective reality and to themselves) along with the rules of grammar and syntax by which they are combined into meaningful constructs?

Additionally who said chimps do not understand justice?

I do. I go out on a limb and say they don't understand the concept of justice.
They may have some crudely formed concepts of their own as they are on the higher end of that sliding scale I spoke of, but justice is above them.

they understand warnings. They will repremand thier young for fooling around as will dogs, cats etc..with a 'cuff' as a warning. A dog who has knowingly done something wrong (eaten dads dinner) will skulk into a corner when dad walks into the kitchen as he 'knows' there is a repercussion for what he just did.

What does this have to do with justice?

Alright.
Here's a simpler example.
Tool use.

We know that chimps use tools, yes?
But chimps don't use tools to make tools.
That's the difference.

This is exactly identical with the concept of justice. Chimps can have concepts that relate directly to objective reality, but they don't use those concepts to create higher order concepts.



Sam,

Do you have access to Science?

Invert you said:

"Alright.
Here's a simpler example.
Tool use.

We know that chimps use tools, yes?
But chimps don't use tools to make tools.
That's the difference."


Invert are you aware that the chimps brain is strictly limited in terms of its ability to learn new things and while they develop at the same rate as a human baby, this STOPS at age 2. thus every adult chimp will only ever have the relative intelligence of a very average 2 yr old child.

So do 2yr old humans use tools to make tools? Nooooooooo

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

http://www.psycheducation.org/emotion/triune%20brain.htm


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

Sam,

Do you have access to Science?

Yes what do you need?

Theory,

Invert are you aware that the chimps brain is strictly limited in terms of its ability to learn new things and while they develop at the same rate as a human baby, this STOPS at age 2. thus every adult chimp will only ever have the relative intelligence of a very average 2 yr old child. So do 2yr old humans use tools to make tools? Nooooooooo

Uh.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let's stick with defnitions for the moment?

Theory,



Uh.

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

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


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

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

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

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

Sam,

What do you need?

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

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

§outh§tar:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chatha:

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

sleeper555:

"Without language you cannot really think per se (complex thought), but you can feel. Once mental symbology is applied (in any format) to these feelings, thoughts may be generated. "

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

samcdkey:

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

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

Theoryofrelativity:

"Point 1 - There is no universal grammar
As a believer that language is the driving force of thought, I can't see the cognitive constraints as being separable from the notion of universal grammar. The basic concepts underlying language are unlikely to be the mere embodiments of concepts shared with non-linguistic animals. Can the notion of number be equated with what the hunter sees when approaching prey? "

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

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

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

"Point 3 - There is no language organ
While the location and nature of the LAD (Language Acquisition Device) remain little understood or even identified, language is cerebral, so it is contained within one organ, the brain, about which we know very little. "

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

Fraggle Rocker:

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

Theoryofrelativity

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

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

Invert

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

Sam,



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

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

Sure. I like to read about everything!

I found the one on the Bilingual brain

Grrrr..
Lost a post.

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

Ok.
Back to square one.


First.
On the truine brain.

re the three brains, again you are WRONG invert check the link I provided.
This is, I suppose, a huge problem when you just google up information and read it as fast as you can to get your post in before anyone else.
You're making a fool of yourself.

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

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

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


Heh.
From your link:
Here is the familiar "cortex" you can see from the outside. With this brain, primates can do things that horses and cows cannot, like complex social interactions and advance planning (such as planning an attack on a neighboring troop).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is a brief synopsis for you.

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

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

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

Speaking of which...

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

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

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

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

Both ideas are instantly recognizable as ludicrous.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Muaha!!!!!!

You suck, Truthy.
Kiss your wife for me.

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

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


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

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

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

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


Muaha!!!!!!

You suck, Truthy.
Kiss your wife for me.
She's in the hospital...

Tor,

The six-layer cortex appears to be a distinguishing feature of mammals: It has been found in the brains of all mammals but not in any other animals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neocortex


Sam,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The same thing happens with language.
Here. A quote from Wittgenstein who is quoting Augustine:
"When they (my elders) named some object, and accordingly moved towards something, I saw this and I grasped that the thing was called by the sound they uttered when they meant to point it out. Their intention was shewn by their bodily movements, as it were the natural language of all peoples: the expression of he face, the play of the eyes, the movement of other parts of the body, and the tone of voice which expresses our state of mind in seeking, having, rejecting, or avoiding something. Thus, as I heard words repeatedly used in their proper places in various sentences, I gruadulaly learnt to understand what objects they signified; and after I had trained my mouth to form these signs, I used them to express my own desires."
This is a rather common sense application of language acquisition.
And a faulty one (common sense is often quite ill-informed.)

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

A is for Apple.

To J is for Justice.

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

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

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

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

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

Our blessing can be a curse.

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

So what I get from the posts so far is that we have the capacity for abstra