The primary question is whether language is necessary for thought.
A: Thought MUST precede language. To invent language requires thought!
A secondary question might be whether language impedes the thought process.
A: Yes, language can impede thought (temporarily). This happens when a new concept is realised and there is no term to describe it. A word is simply invented to represent this idea, and the meaning of the new word is standardised and imparted to others (Dictionary).
Seeing Rapalla's new avatar reminded me of a situation in our house. I have a border collie that is very visually oriented. Constantly taking things in visually and stalking and herding. We have another dog that is a coonhound and is led by his nose. Both receive information to their brain in the same way, but the more developed parts of their brains I am guessing are much different. So on some level would their ability to communicate/relate be a function of a physical attribute in their brain?
Originally posted by rapalla7Have you seen the movie first sight?
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).
I believe you would enjoy it, it is based on a true story, about
a guy who was blind most of his life and got his sight through
an operation. Interesting things that guy went though trying to
understand sight. He had a difficult time with pictures and
shadows trying to understand reality as he now saw it.
Kelly
Human civlisation before language was extremely primative, though clearly showed signs of some level of inteligent thought as some other animals do today (i.e. tool making etc). When Humans climbed out of caves and into houses and started the process of technological improvement was when we learnt to communicate.
Comunication has 2 effects I believe.
Firstly as an individual exercise it has an effect to help foramilse your thought process, as has been sugested here. This allows the brain to handle much more complex idea's. This is more the case with writting than talking though, as no person could hold in their mind the complexity of (purely for examples sake) the pyrimids, but being able to break down it's elements with language allows the mind to only consider one element at a time then easily move on to others with no loss of detail. I think it's a testiment to how useful language is in this regard that our thoughts are vocalised. "if he moves here, i move there..." 😉 There is no reason to think like that as such, but it's easier for most than attempting to just freely manipulate the board in our mind (indeed psycholgists would tell you that you can only hold 7 or so structures in you mind so your brain groups pieces togeather into clumps to allow you to handle a ful board. Language can be used here to force you mind to separate them again).
I think the second influence was far far greater though. That is turning inteligence into "extelligence" (a term i read and really liked). Instead of one bright individual having to invent something and others seeing this and aping it, one member can say (again just for example) "I've noticed some sharp rocks, we could use them to kill things but there are not many about" while another would say "really, I've noticed a type of rock you can fashion into different shapes easily" all you need now is some one who's worked out how to attach rocks to sticks and much more quickly you have a flint spear...
Originally posted by kirksey957scientists certainly seem to think so.
So on some level would their ability to communicate/relate be a function of a physical attribute in their brain?
for instance, if you look in the woolboycott thread you'll see reference to research done on sheep where it says:
The scientists then measured activity in regions of the sheep's brain associated with visual recognition.
As in humans, these reside in the temporal and frontal lobes of the brain, including a greater involvement of the right hemisphere.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1641463.stm
so presumably, there are similar structures that perform similar functions. hence, if some of these are better developed, you'd think that it would work better.
or it could be a personality trait, though i don't know if that sort of stuff is a result of physical development or not.
in friendship,
prad
Originally posted by SimonmOriginally posted by Simonm
as no person could hold in their mind the complexity of (purely for examples sake) the pyrimids, but being able to break down it's elements with language allows the mind to only consider one element at a time then easily move on to others with no loss of detail.
I think the second influence was far far greater though. That is turning inteligence into " ...[text shortened]... who's worked out how to attach rocks to sticks and much more quickly you have a flint spear...
as no person could hold in their mind the complexity of (purely for examples sake) the pyrimids, but being able to break down it's elements with language allows the mind to only consider one element at a time then easily move on to others with no loss of detail.
i'm not sure about this though. if you look at what rapalla7 wrote, it seems that the communication used is not necessarily that of "language". admittedly, what he talks about is self-communication and he did say that the difficult part is to convey the meaning to others - which does seem to require language.
That is turning inteligence into "extelligence"
neat term!
why is language necessary in your example? wouldn't the first person simply demonstrate or "communicate" by doing the job. then someone would try it to complete the educational process? this is perhaps reminiscent of
i read, i forget
i see, i remember
i do, i understand
taking the 1st line out is like taking the language out, but the communication is still there.
in friendship,
prad
Originally posted by pradtfI guess language may not be strictly speaking necessary in the given example, I'm sure you would believe me if i said that the titanic could not have been built with out the ability for poeple share idea's in a more rigerous manner than pointing and watching each other...
Originally posted by Simonm
[b] as no person could hold in their mind the complexity of (purely for examples sake) the pyrimids, but being able to break down it's elements with language allows the mind to only consider one element at a time then easily move on to others with no loss of detail.
i'm not sure about this though. if you look at what ...[text shortened]... is like taking the language out, but the communication is still there.
in friendship,
prad [/b]
...Even if you can imagine this happening I think language will certianly dramaticaly spead up the process of sharing knowledge, meaning it only takes a few years in a school these days to learn what it took mankind as a whole 10,000 years to discover (getting kind of hard recently because of the sheer pace of advancement, but ya know what i mean).
Originally posted by Simonmi understand what you mean and i do agree.
I guess language may not be strictly speaking necessary in the given example, I'm sure you would believe me if i said that the titanic could not have been built with out the ability for poeple share idea's in a more rigerous manner than pointing and watching each other...
...Even if you can imagine this happening I think language will certianly dramatica ...[text shortened]... etting kind of hard recently because of the sheer pace of advancement, but ya know what i mean).
i just wonder sometimes though that if certain languages are more suitable for certain tasks - eg english is probably more suitable than latin for making puns, mathematics is more suitable than english for many scientific projects), then could there be a language that is optimally suitable for thought. would this language be similar or dissimilar to a 'public' language? the reason i wonder about this is because the thought was there before the language - so perhaps there is some mechanism at work prior to.
in friendship,
prad
Prad, do you have an interpretation of the Genesis account of the Tower of Babel? I went back and read your original questions and the second was does language impede communication? This is an interesting story where too much communication impeded a correct relationship with God. This may way off of your focus, but I thought it an interesting story.
Originally posted by shavixmirWell, your point is important. If we were to look at thinking and
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.
language from the point where it never occurred, to where it
started occurring? Why would there be a connection between
two beings that could think but never communicated before?
The need would not be felt, the experience of communication
never occurred so why do it? The first thoughts were, before
the brain? Seems like quite a few things needed to occur before
we even got to “thought number one”, let a lone the first time
communication actually occurred during the evolutionary time
line.
Kelly
Originally posted by kirksey957it is interesting and i'm trying to relate it after reading it just now in the book we have at home as well as on some webpages.
Prad, do you have an interpretation of the Genesis account of the Tower of Babel? I went back and read your original questions and the second was does language impede communication? This is an interesting story where too much communic ...[text shortened]... may way off of your focus, but I thought it an interesting story.
the first thing that struck me of course were the words in my book "and that is why god called it babel, because it was there that he confounded the language". now the footnote explains that it was called babel because it was in the vicinity of babylon, but you must understand that i figured god was making an excellent pun here because he caused them all to babel and hence the place known as babylon because everyone did just babble on. right?
after figuring all that out, i turned my attention to the idea you are putting forth. it seems as though god pulled a bit of a nasty on these people by forcing them to speak in different languages. there seemed to be some concern that with 1 language they might be able to accomplish anything. that seemed to be god's concern, but i don't know what the connection with god that you are suggesting lies. certainly, it seems that they were better off and more capable before god imposed multiple tongues and i thought that tower to heaven would have brought them closer to god, but i probably don't understand.
in light of the thread topic though, i agree with you. too many words (languages) are going to be very difficult to accomplish things with. at one time i could read and write (at least to some extent), 4 western and 2 eastern languages, but i always thought in english - everything else got 'translated'. similarly, i think putting thoughts into language may itself be a translation. i wonder very much these days whether it is a help or a hinderance.
finally, as for the 'correct relationship with god', perhaps that may be best achieved through the purity of silence.
in friendship,
prad
Originally posted by pradtfI think the concern for God was that of idolatry. Glad you liked the pun, but your statement about silence was right on.
it is interesting and i'm trying to relate it after reading it just now in the book we have at home as well as on some webpages.
the first thing that struck me of course were the words in my book "and that is why god called it babel, because it was there that he confounded the language". now the footnote explains that it was called babel because it was ...[text shortened]... god', perhaps that may be best achieved through the purity of silence.
in friendship,
prad
Originally posted by kirksey957thank you.
I think the concern for God was that of idolatry. Glad you liked the pun, but your statement about silence was right on.
please explain god's concern for idolatry. it says that he thought that with 1 language there was nothing they couldn't do (or something like that). i did see or don't understand where idolatry fit in.
in friendship,
prad
Originally posted by pradtfWhen we think of idolatry, I think it is the idea of either making an image to worship instead of God or making oneself to be like God. As it says "there is nothing that they couldn't do." That is a god-like quality I think.
thank you.
please explain god's concern for idolatry. it says that he thought that with 1 language there was nothing they couldn't do (or something like that). i did see or don't understand where idolatry fit in.
in friendship,
prad
Originally posted by kirksey957of course! i understand now and thank you!
When we think of idolatry, I think it is the idea of either making an image to worship instead of God or making oneself to be like God. As it says "there is nothing that they couldn't do." That is a god-like quality I think.
it is interesting because according to plato (i think it was) both sexes used to reside within the same body. these creatures were apparently extraordinarily attractive, competent etc etc etc.
they also got rather full of themselves and started thinking they were god-like, which ticked the real gods off. so in one of those rather immature displays of temper, the gods split the creatures into male and female.
the 2 sexes as a result look to find each other and reunite ever since.
in friendship,
prad