• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Is "language" a requirement for "thought" ?

D

Descartes

Lifer
I was just thinking about this today. Many will say that animals are inferior simply because they have no "formal language." I then thought about how I would identify objects (object permanence is clearly something many animals are capable of) if I had no word for them. It's said that babies will develop object permanence in the first couple years, but how do they identify these objects? There has to be a unique identifier for a given object, and only until later in life is that identifier represented formally, in the form of a word of any given language. It's also proven that african elephants communicate on a frequency that is not perceptible by man, yet we still say animals don't communicate (or at least, we say they don't communicate beyond the primitive needs of survival).

How does your dog remember you? How does your dog associate actions with particular events (e.g. shaking bowl means you're going to feed them, etc.)? Many animals can understand our language, to an extent, yet we know nothing of theirs. So, given any event, object, of idea, how could one "think" about it without first having a unique way to identify it? You see a ball, you acknowledge it's texture, color, structure, etc.. How would you do that if you didn't know it was rough, black, and round, respectively?

Thoughts welcome...
 
i think its based on the fact that we can tell differences in objects, hence, uniqueness. For example, a child can tell the difference between mom and another woman by sight alone, with no word to describe her.

 
But that would suggest that a babies excitement towards the sight of their mother is purely arbitrary.

The baby can identify the person as being significant, and not just aesthetically. It may not understand that the woman is in fact it's mother, but still, significant.
 
No. Babies know no language, but they must have thoughts otherwise they wouldn't have the capacity to learn the language. Also, think Helen Keller. Blind and deaf. Without those senses, if she didn't think I don't believe she ever would have been more than a vegetable.
 
I think animals, even without language, can do basic discrimination between stimuli. I think thought is somewhat 'built in', but higher thought processes involving more complex/abstract stimuli needs a form of representation. Language may be one of them.

I dunno if this makes sense, I just drug a monitor a quarter mile and I'm feelin lightheaded.
 
I don't think it's a requirement for thought, but it might be for memories. A lot of people do not seem to retain memories prior to acquiring the ability to speak.
 
i think its based on the fact that we can tell differences in objects, hence, uniqueness. For example, a child can tell the difference between mom and another woman by sight alone, with no word to describe her

But a cat can tell the differance between its owner and an ordinary person as well. My cat runs like the wind when he sees stranger. Humans have the ability to reason.
 
language is a requirement for complex thought. you can train pretty much anything to react a certain way to certain stimuli, but that does not make it intelligent.
 


<< Humans have the ability to reason. >>



Do cats not? It's said that the frontal lobe is responsible for reasoning, and felines have frontal lobes. One of my cats is very cautious around visitors, yet when he sees me being friendly to someone for a short time, he'll come around. That's reason, logic, and the ability to anticipate.
 
i have often wondered about this before, i think that primitive beings, whether they are us at a young stage, animals, or ancient us, could think in pictures at least.
 


<< language is a requirement for complex thought. you can train pretty much anything to react a certain way to certain stimuli, but that does not make it intelligent. >>



The converse seems to be true. The more we learn, the more encumbered we are with prefabricated thoughts. We lose all originality, because there's already a predefined representation for us, so long as we memorize it. If anything, I would say that the ability to operate on a functional level (collaborative hunting with animals, collaborative defense, etc.) *without* any formal language (again, I don't believe this, but operating on the idea presented above) is brilliant, and far more advanced.

A short story...

I have a silver ring that I bought in Mexico a long time ago that I take off at night, and put on my desk with my watch. Quite often, I'll wake up and my ring will be gone. It wasn't until a short while ago that I found out one of my cats had been taking my ring, and hiding it from me. I can't find this damn ring for several days at times, and then all of a sudden it shows back up, exactly where it was before. Shortly after that, it will disappear again.

Not sure what to think of it. They seem to know it's of some significance to me.
 


<< i have often wondered about this before, i think that primitive beings, whether they are us at a young stage, animals, or ancient us, could think in pictures at least. >>



Yes, that's the object permanence part. However, how would you know which picture represented what? If we simply say, &quot;well, the distinction is enough&quot; then we really only have 2 states of thought: the present state of thought, and the past state of thought relative to the present. The whole idea of object *permanence* suggests some way to associate a given &quot;picture&quot; with a thought, feeling, event, etc..

This still doesn't account for the ability of many predatory animals to collaboratively hunt. Not only do they know who their hunting partner is, but they communicate at some level to execute a kill.
 
language isn't required for anything. it just makes everything else easier until something better comes along.
 
I think if you bring in a bunch of linguists to this conversation, you could have a full-fledged discussion simply because this is one of the disputed topics of the field. IANAL, but I think one of the primary issues is basically how did communication come about if &quot;thought&quot; is the more primal activity (you can think the instant you're born, but how would others understand your vocal cries) but language is a prerequisite for thought?

My opinion is that language and the ability to communicate intra-species is required for complex thought simply because some ideas are really difficult to express visually or through other senses. Visual communication gives cues to what the vocal communication could mean, and once those references are tied in to ideas, then language develops.
 
interesting topic


you can train pretty much anything to react a certain way to certain stimuli

wouldn't the same be said for words, as stimuli?


There has to be a unique identifier for a given object, and only until later in life is that identifier represented formally, in the form of a word of any given language

this makes me wonder about our consciousness........
do the words that come to our awareness during conscious thought affect our thoughts, or are they the effect of our thoughts?

does our subconscious rely on words?

 
Doesn't really matter. Lets take the idea of object permanance. We know a chair. If I say chair, you know what I am talking about. However, the word chair is an arbitrary assignment of random characters to communicate the idea of a chair. It is only through this expression of random assemblages of characters that we communicate, thus making us more intelligent. But however, communication is not a pre-requisite to thought.
 
I would recommend some serious reading on the origin of human language capacity. The current orthodox line is that human language is nothing more than the gradual evolution of animal sounds.

Some of this is true, but some of the greatest minds in the field of language capability have concluded that human language is innate and unique to humans. Not any specific language, but the capacity for language itself. These people include C.S. Pierce and Noam Chomsky.

Higher intelligence is incurably abstract, and has an innate ability to use expressions (or, if able, words) to communicate, and understand, abstract ideas.

Hence, Kant argued that it would be impossible for us to have any world view whatsoever if we were not able to link experiences together in an abstract fashion, and that we would not be able to link them together in abstract fashion if certain categories were not innate.

As C.S.Lewis said, both a human and an animal experience PAIN, but only the human calls it &quot;PAIN.&quot; The animal has all of the ingredients (I, P, N, A) but no ability to discuss the &quot;Problem of Pain.&quot;

In other words, man &quot;names&quot; things and then discusses them from that abstract perspective, even if his discussion is an inner discourse in a language unique to himself. But for man to do this, the ability to do it must be antecedent.

In the beginning was the Word. The deeds of creation followed. Even some physicists are starting to see Thought as the Creator and Govenor of Matter, not an accidental result of it.

Man's language capability is innate. He names things. This is what makes science, philosophy, and art possible. It is what makes this discussion about the nature of language possible. Some lower thought is possible without language capability, but without abstract language capability, there is no linking of A,I,P,N into &quot;PAIN.&quot; Without language capability, a &quot;WORD&quot; that transcends all and precedes it, Existence is isolated and independent. But evidence is increasingly there to show that things are interconnected in an incredible way.
 


<< do the words that come to our awareness during conscious thought affect our thoughts, or are they the effect of our thoughts? >>



I believe so. I think words build a scope for thought, thereby hindering our intellectual freedom. Since words essentially mean nothing unless coupled with an idea, we assimilate the idea from the context in which we first learn a word. So, if you're young (ignorant) and in a racist environment, the first use of racial terms will be assimilated in either a positive or negative manner, depending on who uses the term. It essentially defines a scope that limits your perception to one route only, *unless* you learn a different route at a later time.

Hope that made sense.
 
I like SirFsh's insight. I guess that the subconscious has images, with no logical word to help with understanding. When the right word is found, that person gains understanding of his own internal imagery and desires and moves toward freedom by naming them instead of being unknowingly ruled by them.

The freedom gained by naming them may be very slight, but I guess everyone starts with baby steps.

I also agree with Descartes that words can limit thoughts. Certainly, once we become immersed in a language, it hinders our ability to even think the way someone from a radically different culture and language group thinks. Call this the curse of the Tower of Babel.

But, unlike some, I don't villify the words themselves. I see the words as a dim, fallen, imperfect attempt to grasp the Word. This Word, in Christian philosophy, is the creator of all and the unifying connective principle by which all things exist. The Word is the very logic of God Himself.

Though words often divide us, they also can unify us. When they divide, they are idols, empty forms that are devoid of the unifying thought that interconnects All. When they carry truth, they are the indispensable form of thought itself, even as the Word is called the Eternal Form of the Invisible God.

But I don't want to preach 😉
 
Descartes - you are absolutely correct of course. i guess that it would be better to compare the degree of intelligence in comparison to the complexity of language.
 
Every animal with a complicated nervous system is capable of thought. Only the way to express those thoughts is different between species. Languages are nothing more than 'modules', which are used to convert those thoughts so that another individual can understand those.

All words have one or more 'feelings' connected with them. The module of a language will therefore look like this:

| <word1> | <feeling1><feeling23> |
| <word2> | <feeling780><feeling856654> |

Only difference with a database is that it takes much longer to store one item, often it (the word + meaning(s)) needs to be repeated a few times before it ends up in the long-term memory.

The final construction is build up like this:

-----
3 | outside world
-----
2 | writing/speaking
-----
1 | language-'module'
-----
0 | 'thoughts'
-----

 


<< which are used to convert those thoughts so that another individual can understand those. >>



This brought up an interesting point. As with anything requiring a conversion, there is a great potential for there to be a breakdown between the transition. e.g.

Two people are raised in disparate environments. One person associates a given word with negative feelings, the other with either positive or no feelings. If it's commonplace in your home to refer to a racial minority in a derogatory manner, this would constitute a major breakdown in the transition when using this language in the context of a racial minority. So, extending the thoughts of Athanasius, language is merely an abstraction of thought to elucidate the level of interaction in one's environment. Since the perception of a word's meaning is often relative to the experiences of an individual, language may be a way to more simply conjure past experiences and thoughts.

In short, perhaps language is more about *intra*communication rather than *inter*communication.

[edit]
I'd also like to point out, that when referring to language, that it doesn't impose the requirement of audibility. I think of it as somewhat like an index to our past experiences and thoughts, as it's far easier for our brain to aggregate a set of events and put a single label to it, rather than trying to refer to it as a whole. Mental encapsulation if you will...
[/edit]
 
No, certainly complex thoughts are required for technological advancement, which requires language, but simple thought doesn't require language. The evidence, IMO, of animal/insect thought capabilities is overwhelming.

Let's look at a bee colony:

1) Every bee in a colony is a devout worker of the Queen and will go wherever the Queen goes. Perhaps instinctual.
2) Bees are capable of telling other bees where sources of pollen exists. These sources are random locations, so thought and a form of language as well as a communal comprehension of that language is required. Not instinctual.
3) Beehive construction is another process that maybe viewed as instinctual, but the randomness or variety of beehive shapes/adaptations would seem to indicate at least a rudimentary thought process

There are other examples such as a whale's ability to ascertain it's own group(can't remember the technical term)through voice communications. Personally, I think the topic at hand is based more on humanities inability to understand nature, rather than nature's lack of thought processes beyond the human creature.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top