Can one think without languge?

[Barney Stinson]

For the first years of Hellen Keller's life until they were able to communicate with her she lived like a completely savage animal. When she wrote about said life, her biggest thing was that she couldn't remember what it was like, because there wasn't much thinking involved, other than basic insticts like hungry tired and such.

If a baby was kept in captivity like that for years they'd have an incredibly hard time to learn spoken language and learn to read body language, however if they were never introduced to outside language, they would create their own style of language to cope with things, yes?

How could one have an actual concrete real thought without some form of language?

 

[Lizardbreath]

For the first years of Hellen Keller's life until they were able to communicate with her she lived like a completely savage animal. When she wrote about said life, her biggest thing was that she couldn't remember what it was like, because there wasn't much thinking involved, other than basic insticts like hungry tired and such.

If a baby was kept in captivity like that for years they'd have an incredibly hard time to learn spoken language and learn to read body language, however if they were never introduced to outside language, they would create their own style of language to cope with things, yes?

How could one have an actual concrete real thought without some form of language?

Helen keller could also not hear or speak. A baby can do both.

 

[Barney Stinson]

For a baby that has absolutely no outside influences and is kept alive by machines, it's about the same thing. Why bother having your ears if theres nothing to hear? Why bother speaking (when young) when theres no one to listen?

The fact is, before Helen Keller had a way of communicating with her family she lived like a complete and total savage, going purely off instincts. So for her, without language, visual aid, hearing, she wasn't capable of understanding, let alone thinking.

 

[CelestialBadger]

No, but that doesn't mean that the language wouldn't be out there.

yeah it does.

language is a physical expression of thought. like I said, thought presupposes language. you can't have language without thought but I don't see why you couldn't have thought without language.

 

[Barney Stinson]

In your mind language is a physical expression of thought. However, lets say you picture a tree in your head. That's not a physical expression of thought, however it's still thinking. Now, to be able to think without language what would you need?

All you guys keep saying is "well you can think without language but you cant have language without thought". Give me actual reasons as to how this works, or examples, or your arguments are null to the point of opinion.

 

[Renzokuken]

I daresay you're beating a dead horse. I like your enthusiasm for discussion but it's hurting my brain

 

[GAMEMASTERCHAN]

I think higher levels of thought such as what is expressed in humans requires language. But lower levels of thought expressed in basic animal life doesn't. Humans created the languages we use there for out brains are wired in a way to utilize it. A raccoon on the other had can only rationalize body language, and experiences of whats good or bad. Territorial animals claim territory, I don't think this could happen without thought. Pack animals have a social structure that would take thought. Sea turtles return to the beaches where they were hatched, they remember the way back that would take thought. That is what brains do the store memories and experiences, and express thought.

 

[Barney Stinson]

So what you're saying, is that it's not possible to think without language.

 

[Lizardbreath]

well I think if you don't have language (body language or verbal) then there is no thought process due to the fact that there is no perception.

 

[GAMEMASTERCHAN]

So what you're saying, is that it's not possible to think without language.

To think like humans do yes, but other levels of thought are possible without language.

 

[Barney Stinson]

Such as what?

 

[Jim Morrison]

fight or flight.

 

[Uncle_Vanya]

You can think by assigning images to things.

 

[Barney Stinson]

fight or flight.

Is fight or flight thinking, or is it a basic instinct in animals such as hunger and exhuastion?

(Hint, it's the latter).


Vanya -- Assigning images to things is language, or have you not read any of this thread?

 

[Uncle_Vanya]

Is fight or flight thinking, or is it a basic instinct in animals such as hunger and exhuastion?

(Hint, it's the latter).


Vanya -- Assigning images to things is language, or have you not read any of this thread?

Thats a very broad definition of language that doesn't seem very correct, I am not talking about written symbols, rather I am talking about thinking in terms of imagining an object as you see it, for example, you're thinking about getting some coffee, you imagine coffee being poured into a cup.

 

[Barney Stinson]

I didn't say they were written. If you're imaging something, such as "coffee being poured into a cup" theres about a billion reasons as to why it's thinking with language.

Just because you think with pictures doesn't mean you think without language.

 

[Uncle_Vanya]

I didn't say they were written. If you're imaging something, such as "coffee being poured into a cup" theres about a billion reasons as to why it's thinking with language.

Just because you think with pictures doesn't mean you think without language.

So I guess it all depends on your definition of what is language, the general definition certainly wouldn't define thinking with images as thinking with language. But to answer your question, with your personal definition of what language is, no a person can not think.

 

[Barney Stinson]

the general definition certainly wouldn't define thinking with images as thinking with language.

The general definition of language is symbols(spoken, written, so on and so forth) with rules(grammar, essentially), so thinking with images falls directly under said category. It's not a 'personal definition' by any long shot. A personal definition of language would be what most of you have said in the thread before I stated otherwise.

 

[Uncle_Vanya]

The general definition of language is symbols(spoken, written, so on and so forth) with rules(grammar, essentially), so thinking with images falls directly under said category. It's not a 'personal definition' by any long shot. A personal definition of language would be what most of you have said in the thread before I stated otherwise.

Eh, then you're misinterpreting the general definition.

language definition | Dictionary.com

In the definition you're referring to language is described as means of communication, while you're thinking you're not communicating with anyone, more so if you use some common sense then you will realize that "symbols" means just that, symbols, as in using one or a set of characters/sounds to represent an object or an action, thinking with images does not count as using language since you're not assigning meanings to simpler characters but rather you're imagining exactly what you're going to do in the physical world, so yes you can think with images without using language. Also it refers to a system of symbols, while images don't necessarily have to be systematic for you to get their meaning. Please don't try to fake intellectualism, you're really not cut out for it.

 

[Barney Stinson]

In the definition you're referring to language is described as means of communication, while you're thinking you're not communicating with anyone.

When we think, are we not communicating with ourselves?

more so if you use some common sense then you will realize that "symbols" means just that, symbols, as in using one or a set of characters/sounds to represent an object or an action, thinking with images does not count as using language since you're not assigning meanings to simpler characters but rather you're imagining exactly what you're going to do in the physical world.

The ability to understand and reason, to reflect (read as "thinking" if one wanted) would require at least some basic form of language, would it not? By saying "...as in using one or a set of characters/sounds to represent an object or an action", then following it with "you're imagining exactly what you're going to do in the physical world." is a contriction initself, is it not?

To say that symbols (language, really is what you're getting at) are used to represent an object or an action, then to say that what you're going to do in the physical world (IE:, an action) is not thought by language...

Also it refers to a system of symbols, while images don't necessarily have to be systematic for you to get their meaning.

And to get said meaning, wouldn't one have to...gee, I don't know, use language?

Please don't try to fake intellectualism, you're really not cut out for it.

Cute. You should take your own advice here, Guy. It would seem as if I'm just repeating the same thing for every new member that comes into this thread. Please, do me and the rest of the participants of the forum a favor and actually read through the thread before you try and call me out on it.