This is a thread that the extremely talented garyminford (who seems to have vanished as a result of work pressures) and i had been meaning to start many months ago - so in his honour it is being started now. hope to hear from you one day soon, gary!
The primary question is whether language is necessary for thought.
A secondary question might be whether language impedes the thought process.
Consider the following, for instance:
Can children who haven't learned language yet, think - and with what tools?
When you think of something, do you find yourself verbalizing the thought?
Is it possible that some languages are better for thinking with than others? For example, apparently patoi doesn't allow past or future tenses - only the present. what effect would this have on the thinking patterns of a person only able to speak patoi.
Does language facilitate the linking process to a variety of ideas, or does it actually hamper thought by restricting the possibilities because the words to convey ideas do not exist.
A picture may be worth a 1000 words, so is it possible that the 1000 words really screw things up?
in friendship,
prad
Originally posted by pradtfWhorf's Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis is interesting on this subject.
This is a thread that the extremely talented garyminford (who seems to have vanished as a result of work pressures) and i had been meaning to start many months ago - so in his honour it is being started now. hope to hear from you one day soon, gary!
The primary question is whether language is necessary for thought.
A secondary question might be whether l ...[text shortened]... 000 words, so is it possible that the 1000 words really screw things up?
in friendship,
prad
Originally posted by pradtfBy 'language' do you mean a public language (e.g., English, French, etc.)? Many folks in linguistics and phil. of mind think that thought involves an innate language-like system of mental representations, and that public languages map onto to this system of representations. This is the Language of Thought Hypothesis, most famously put forward by Jerry Fodor.
This is a thread that the extremely talented garyminford (who seems to have vanished as a result of work pressures) and i had been meaning to start many months ago - so in his honour it is being started now. hope to hear from you one day soon, gary!
The primary question is whether language is necessary for thought.
A secondary question might be whether l ...[text shortened]... 000 words, so is it possible that the 1000 words really screw things up?
in friendship,
prad
Originally posted by pradtfInteresting concept. I'm no expert on the brain, but your question about children and their thinking reminded me that everyone has sensory/receptive neurons and motor/expressive neurons in their nervous system. Would not the sensory pathways be a tool of learning. You know the old story about touching something hot. Very basic, but your nervous system teaches you to "not touch" and does it without words. Children can be very intuitive as well even though they may not have language skills. Perhaps their tools of observation (ocular system ) and ears (auditory system) inform them just fine in that first year. I'll wait to see what others have to say.
This is a thread that the extremely talented garyminford (who seems to have vanished as a result of work pressures) and i had been meaning to start many months ago - so in his honour it is being started now. hope to hear from you one day soon, gary!
The primary question is whether language is necessary for thought.
A secondary question might be whether l ...[text shortened]... 000 words, so is it possible that the 1000 words really screw things up?
in friendship,
prad
Originally posted by bbarryes i'm talking of public languages as you have described.
By 'language' do you mean a public language (e.g., English, French, etc.)? Many folks in linguistics and phil. of mind think that thought involves an innate language-like system of mental representations, and that public languages map onto ...[text shortened]... e of Thought Hypothesis, most famously put forward by Jerry Fodor.
i'm questioning to what extent public language because of the mapping mess up the actual thinking process that no doubt takes place a la mental representations.
would, for instance, the innate system flow more efficiently unencumbered by a public language?
or as the sage once wrote:
"If you do not understand my silence, you will not understand my words."
in friendship,
prad
Originally posted by kirksey957this is very true and begs the question, is instinct a thought process?
You know the old story about touching something hot. Very basic, but your nervous system teaches you to "not touch" and does it without words. Children can be very intuitive as well even though they may not have language skills.
in friendship,
prad
Originally posted by pradtfOkay, what about people born deaf, and dumb? We could also look at
This is a thread that the extremely talented garyminford (who seems to have vanished as a result of work pressures) and i had been meaning to start many months ago - so in his honour it is being started now. hope to hear from you one day soon, gary!
The primary question is whether language is necessary for thought.
A secondary question might be whether l ...[text shortened]... 000 words, so is it possible that the 1000 words really screw things up?
in friendship,
prad
Helen Keller’s life.
Kelly
Using language is a way of structuring thoughts in order to communicate with eachother.
There are more ways of structuring thoughts (images stored in memory for instance, feelings stored in memory, smells stored in memory).
Animals and small children do not use words in structuring their thoughts, but they surely have structured thoughts.
Pradtf: "The primary question is whether language is necessary for thought."
No.
Pradtf: "A secondary question might be whether language impedes the thought process"
Absolutely not, language structures thought.
Pradtf: "Is it possible that some languages are better for thinking with than others?"
Yes.
Originally posted by pradtfWell what is thinking without language.It is a set of mental images or pictures which are combined to make coherence.Thinking without language does indeed indeed improve your imaginative and visualization capacity.But memory proves a problem, how do you remember numberical quantities.Numerical quantities do play a crucial role in the life. Let us suppose you have five apples.To remember it you must always visualize 5 apples lying next to each other.Now you gain an extra apple.How do you combine them.You do not say 5+1=6 you have to have the mental image of 5 apples then you visualize 1 more apple added to them and now store the updated image in your head.This becomes tougher with bigger lets say 25apples or more complex 5apples,2bananas,3 orangesetc. Visualizing places and distances is also tough.I suppose t0 visualize it man used to have some reference points.A is longer then B which is longer than c than d etc.So whatever distance is to be conveyed it is placed between these reference points.
yes i'm talking of public languages as you have described.
i'm questioning to what extent public language because of the mapping mess up the actual thinking process that no doubt takes place a la mental representations.
would, for inst ...[text shortened]... te system flow more efficiently unencumbered by a public language?
X lies between b and c ,y is greater than a ,z is less than d.So all distances fall into n+1 categories if you are using n reference points.
You cant say distance is 2a or 3a it is just greater then a.
Public languages shorten these processes because instead of referring to complex visual images you can refer to simple figures and words to convey your feeling,meaning or whatever else.But your imaginative and visualizational poweresses would be sacrificed for the sake of better comprehension.
I suppose man when language was not yet developed fully had the talent to produce exceptional level poetry seeing as his thoughts are literally full of images and sounds instead of dull words.This might also explain how such masterpeices of painting were produced when considering that he had limited equipment available and he drew on stones in the caves instead of our paper nowadays.But on the other hand his comprehension of the world was less as many things he could not understand as he had no way of expressing them.Knowledge would also be less as communication with fellow beings limited to gestures each man would be an island of knowledge.
Am I the only one here who remembers all of this from the "Bacon or Similar meat product" threads? If not.. is there any doubt whatsoever where this is indended to go?
Must have garnered a few recruits. Time to do it again?
I can just see it all now... "Oh! What a wonderful idea. You are just the smartest person alive! Wonder of wonders. We have discovered the next Einstein here."
It depends on what yhat you mean by 'thinking' and what you mean by 'language'.
Language is generally meant to mean: system of sounds, symbols, etc. for cummunicating thought.
So, yes. You need language to think.
Unless you NEVER communicate what you're thinking, in which case your thinking is of no matter or concern to others and might as well not exist, because it is not proven.
Originally posted by druidraviwhat a thorough and superb post ravi!
Well what is thinking without language.It is a set of mental images or pictures which are combined to make coherence.Thinking without language does indeed indeed improve your imaginative and visualization capacity.But memory proves a problem, how do you remember numberical quantities.Numerical quantities do play a crucial role in the life. Let us suppose y ...[text shortened]... communication with fellow beings limited to gestures each man would be an island of knowledge.
i find it a curious dilemma. i recognize, as you and ivanhoe have written, that words can conjure up images thereby shortening the thinking process, yet we know that words just don't do it much of the time.
the 'linking' effect words can certainly be powerful. for instance, "sky" can conjure up a host of images. however, aren't those images really nothing more than pictures in our experience? there are other words like noble, crazy, weirdo which have been 'mapped' to some extent with a considerable complexity of concepts and and are therefore useful, but i wonder whether the database is a help or a hinderance?
for instance, if what you want to do resides within the db, you can get it done very well in most cases. however, if it doesn't you may be in trouble - not only because it isn't in the db, but because you are attached to the usage and the mechanisms of the db. i find that i often have an idea that i verbalize unnecessarily because i'm used to my db.
hence, your point regarding the situation when language wasn't fully developed is very interesting because other mechanisms must have been present for the thinking to continue - though i wonder whether the gestures are necessarily limiting. in sign language, for instance, some gestures are very communicative. perhaps, in the past each gesture was indeed an entire island of knowledge.
in friendship,
prad
Originally posted by KellyJaya very good point! clearly thought without a 'public' language for sometime.
Okay, what about people born deaf, and dumb? We could also look at
Helen Keller?s life.
Kelly
the problem seems to be to get those who don't have access to the public language to develop some system to do so - eg the signing techniques that the deaf and blind learn.
that might make access to the usual world possible, but i wonder if it can't but help slow things down elsewhere in the thinking process especially since the language is even harder to access.
in friendship,
prad
I spend most of my day thinking visually (orthographic, oblique, and Isometric), breaking down flat drawings of complicated mechanical systems; visualizing a finished project before it has been built, After I have done that I can determine how the job will be put together and how fast, with how many mechanics. The hard part is learning to be able to communicate that kind of thinking to another person, and make them see the picture that is in my mind.
I have done large parts of jobs with crews, where the noise is so great we can communicate with gestures we do not learn... (Not just the finger).
Originally posted by rapalla7i think that sort of thing takes a special talent and thought process - and may be its own non-public language.
I spend most of my day thinking visually (orthographic, oblique, and Isometric), breaking down flat drawings of complicated mechanical systems; visualizing a finished project before it has been built, After I have done that I can determine how the job will be put together and how fast, with how many mechanics. The hard part is learning to be able to commu ...[text shortened]... noise is so great we can communicate with gestures we do not learn... (Not just the finger).
the person who renovated our house used to amazed even his co-workers by being able to calculate materials down to the last stud!
now my background is engineering, but i couldn't figure out how to start to do our basement back in the 80s. it was a very interesting process and there were certain things i did well and certain things i had to do many times. i had the language, but not the understanding which i guess is a large part of the thinking.
so it is very interesting too when you say that the hard part is trying to communicate that kind of thinking to others using the usual tools available - and that you develop 'new' tools (eg gestures).
in friendship,
prad