Can one think without languge?

[Jim Morrison]

fight or flight is either you run or fight.


so the animal considers what the animal infront of him is, can it beat its ass, and some other shit then decides.

thats thinking im pretty sure.

 

[Barney Stinson]

Back in the 1930’s, Harvard physiologist Walter Cannon was the first to coin the term ‘fight or flight.’ He used it to describe our innate defense mechanism in the face of a threat or danger. We also refer to this state as "survival mode".

 

[Uncle_Vanya]

Oh don't you love sounding clever, you're asking an abstract question and then use your own interpretation of a very vague definition to make yourself right. Next lets ask: What is the meaning of life? Whatever helps your heavily damaged ego. Seriously, after all the crap you pulled in my thread (which proves that even a basic understanding of physics is way beyond you) the idea that you could squeeze out a coherent thought is just laughable. Im done here.

 

[Jim Morrison]

Back in the 1930’s, Harvard physiologist Walter Cannon was the first to coin the term ‘fight or flight.’ He used it to describe our innate defense mechanism in the face of a threat or danger. We also refer to this state as "survival mode".

explain to me how fight or flight works without thought then.

 

[Barney Stinson]

Oh don't you love sounding clever, you're asking an abstract question and then use your own interpretation of a very vague definition to make yourself right. Next lets ask: What is the meaning of life? Whatever helps your heavily damaged ego. Seriously, after all the crap you pulled in my thread (which proves that even a basic understanding of physics is way beyond you) the idea that you could squeeze out a coherent thought is just laughable. Im done here.

So essentially, I proved you wrong, and instead of trying to debate it with me, you're crying over something I posted in another thread? And you had the nerve to call us immature in another thread??

 

[CelestialBadger]

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?

what...?

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.

you just gave an example. if you picture a tree in your head, you're right, it's not a physical expression of thought. that's because it IS thought. you're thinking of a tree, you're not communicating it. when you say "tree" your vocal chords are physically moving to express the idea of a tree. but thinking of the tree doesn't require language. that's like saying you can't conceive of anything that you don't have a word for. like those stories about societies that don't have a word for war because it's a foreign concept except totally fucking backwards. a society that doesn't have war because they never bothered to invent a word for it. that makes no sense.

I think you're confused.

 

[electricmole]

dogs don't have a language but they can think and obey.

fight or flight is either you run or fight.

i used this to fight my daily panic attack. and since i always choose to fight. lol

 

[concrete_sox]

actually dude they have a language they bark and everything

 

[Zeechuck]

This is a really, really good question....I never really thought about it...No Pun intended...lol....Hmmm..I am still undecided on this one although there are some good arguments on the subject...

 

[Uncle_Vanya]

Since you won't shut the hell up about this and I am bored.

When we think, are we not communicating with ourselves?

Language is: "the words, their pronunciation, and the methods of combining them used and understood by a community. (1): audible, articulate, meaningful sound as produced by the action of the vocal organs (2): a systematic means of communicating ideas or feelings by the use of conventionalized signs, sounds, gestures, or marks having understood meanings (3): the suggestion by objects, actions, or conditions of associated ideas or feelings <language in their very gesture — Shakespeare> (4): the means by which animals communicate (5): a formal system of signs and symbols (as FORTRAN or a calculus in logic) including rules for the formation and transformation of admissible expressions (6)"


language - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

There are several variations of the definition but all come down to language being a form of communication with the world around you.

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?

No it is not a contradiction at all and you're yet to present any evidence that points towards your argument that thinking with images is somehow a form of thinking with language. In fact the definition clearly states that language is a set of symbols understood by a community, thus if you create a set of symbols and you're the only one who knows it, it is not a language, thus even in that way you can think without language. That said simple example of thinking without language is assigning meanings to words that are different from those within the community at large. Call a cow, coconut, and call a cup, tree and do it all in your head and as far as the definition of the word language in English is concerned you're thinking without language since your understanding isn't shared by the community.

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...

Symbols are used to substitute meanings of actions among other thing, imagining the action itself is not using a symbol since you're not using any gesture, character, or anything else for that matter to substitute for the action as you see it in your mind's eye but rather you imagine the action itself without the use of symbols.

Lol, now lets see what that empty space between your ears can fart out.

 

[Jim Morrison]

explain to me how fight or flight works without thought then.

.

 

[Barney Stinson]

Fight or Flight is just endorphines and other bullshit being released and raising your bodys 'stats' up, so to speak. What does that have to do with thinking? Your body naturally knows when it's in danger, and Fight/Flight is an automated response/answer, not something that is thought about.

Explain to me why fight or flight needs language, since you seem to think this way.

 

[Jim Morrison]

Fight or Flight is just endorphines and other bullshit being released and raising your bodys 'stats' up, so to speak. What does that have to do with thinking? Your body naturally knows when it's in danger, and Fight/Flight is an automated response/answer, not something that is thought about.

Explain to me why fight or flight needs language, since you seem to think this way.

dog ur just flippin shit around language needing fight or flight has nothing to do with anything

 

[Theroy]

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?

I think that just ended everything dude.

And why was this

what...?

you just gave an example. if you picture a tree in your head, you're right, it's not a physical expression of thought. that's because it IS thought. you're thinking of a tree, you're not communicating it. when you say "tree" your vocal chords are physically moving to express the idea of a tree. but thinking of the tree doesn't require language. that's like saying you can't conceive of anything that you don't have a word for. like those stories about societies that don't have a word for war because it's a foreign concept except totally fucking backwards. a society that doesn't have war because they never bothered to invent a word for it. that makes no sense.

I think you're confused.

unreplied too..

 

[Uncle_Vanya]

Question, why was my post deleted? In any case, you can think without language, just look up the definition of language and read it carefully, especially the part that says that language is a set of characters understood by community. If you alter that set or if you come up with a new one that is thinking without language since you're the only one who knows that set and no one in the community understands you. CB did a pretty good job of explaining why thinking with images is not thinking with language.

 

[ChrisH36]

Unless someone were to devise a method that doesn't involve language, then there is probably no way to do so.

To me, there must be at least language (be it verbal, action, or thought) to communicate and/or think.

@CB's post: What if you didn't know what a tree exactly was (stating as an example)? And you needed someone to explain what the tree is? You would be pretty screwed if you didn't have language to assist you.

 

[CelestialBadger]

@CB's post: What if you didn't know what a tree exactly was (stating as an example)? And you needed someone to explain what the tree is? You would be pretty screwed if you didn't have language to assist you.

yes, exactly it was an example. If you don't know what a tree is, it's not because no one's ever explained it to you. It's because a tree has never been a part of your sensory experience. Two people who have seen a tree but don't speak the same language still know what a tree is and can still think of a tree.

To me, there must be at least language (be it verbal, action, or thought) to communicate and/or think.

thoughts and actions are not necessarily language. this really isn't such an abstract concept.

why do I feel like I've been explaining the same basic concepts over and over again in different words. seriously guys the fact that you can't understand this shit no matter how many ways I explain it is a prime example of the difference between language and thought

 

[ChrisH36]

The thing is: Some of the people here believe that you need language in connection with thought to actually think of something. You can obviously think without language, because thought is something you yourself genearte, but you may need language to help "better explain things", like in the tree example.

 

[Jim Morrison]

The thing is: Some of the people here believe that you need language in connection with thought to actually think of something. You can obviously think without language, because thought is something you yourself genearte, but you may need language to help "better explain things", like in the tree example.

motherfucker this isnt a debate in whether language is needed with abstract thought its about thought and language.

 

[ChrisH36]

And I answered it as such, from the way I saw it.

I basically said: That you can think without using language. But there are somethings that need language to create thought, which is for more, complex things. The tree was just an example.