I think there are many, many interesting discussion to be had in this field. But rather than list everything at once and have a bunch of disjointed conversations, I thought we could just exhaust one topic at a time. Of course, if this isn't interesting to anyone, then this thread will die a quiet and probably extremely painful death. And so will you if you don't respond with some coherent
So, first up for discussion: Is language required for thought?
Now, let's make sure what we're talking about here. I'm talking about ratiocination - the ability we, as humans, have to reason through certain steps. Even children, if told that if they do their homework then they can watch TV, understand the implications of doing and not doing their homework. So this does not include whatever kind of "thought" animals have (we can discuss this later), but only the reasoning ability we have. ** I realize certain animals may display behavior that is indicative of ratiocinative thought, but if we try to lump these examples in, things are going to get very very muddled **
Often, when I'm thinking about something, especially something complex, I have an inner monologue that's almost like me talking to myself. Hell, sometimes I do talk out loud to myself when in a problem-solving crunch. But is this inner monologue required for thought? I'm thinking right now of this deaf guy I saw. He's never been able to hear - he can't read lips and he doesn't know how to form words. So you have to communicate with this guy by writing. I saw him a few weeks ago actually signing (not singing) to himself, and I wondered if this functioned as his internal monologue.
So, I'll leave it here for discussion. And if anyone knows someone who has never been able to speak, ask them if they have this internal monologue and what it's like. I can't ask the deaf guy I know because I don't really know him that well. But this should be a question we can actually answer.
Many good comments I'd like to respond to and a few thing I should clear up. I'll try to be as succinct as possible.
What language does a deaf man think in. Could have summed up all of that post.
I realize I have a problem with being long winded. But I had to give a clear definition of what is meant here by "thought" and also establish the grounds for further topics/discussions.
Therefore, the fact that we created language (which is an act which requires thought) proves that we can think without language.
I think your first premise is unsound. You claim that thought is necessary for language. Now, while I didn't provide a definition for language here, the argument doesn't really hinge on that. Prairie dogs, for example, have a very complex language system. They can even come up with new words for new stimuli and disseminate the new word amongst the members of the community. But they clearly don't have the ability to reasons like humans do - and it's this ratiocination with which I'm mostly concerned.
She wrote back that she used to only think in sign language.
I'm having a hard time wrapping my brain around this. Do you think she just pictures someone (maybe herself) signing? Or just floating hands? Or is it something more abstract? This makes me wonder if people who are born deaf take longer to do complex problem solving...
But hey, please define "thought"? Does the longing of freedom a thought or an instinct?
I provided what I thought what a pretty clear definition for what is meant here by thought. It's ratiocination - the ability to reason logically. If X then Y. X obtains. So Y will obtain. That's simple ratiocination. It's reasoning.
We don't need words to think about some particular things (e.g. a smell or taste is rather hard to describe with words, thus a person is more likely to recognize it -ceteris paribus- using one of these senses than when somebody describes it using words).
That's not thought so much as reflection. Again, I'm only talking about ratiocination here.
I would think that thoughts can stem from any form of interaction with the world,
We're not talking about thoughts themselves, we're talking about thinking - specifically reasoning.
This means that animals do think, based on their interactions with the outside world.
This is why I didn't want to bring in animals, as I said in the OP. It's easy to ascribe feelings or thoughts to animals, but that's simply because that's how we understand the world. ** Animals are absolutely not capable of thought in the context we're talking about here. They lack the brain function/capacity to do so. They cannot reason using modus tollens or hypothetical syllogism.
Haven't you ever heard the expression,think before you speak?Well that applies here!Of course you need to think to speak!
This is a terrible argument by itself. Plus, it doesn't address the question at hand. The question is whether language is required for thought - not the other way around. Although the question you attempt to answer is interesting in its own right, no doubt. But idioms do not a sound argument make.
However i think a key distinction hsould be made between higher and lower thought processes.
Just to make sure we're all on the right page - you're right. We need to make the distinction. Thus the talk about ratiocination. Maybe I should've changed the title, but then no one would've known what the hell I was talking about.
Language is a tool to convey thoughts, which leads me to the assumption that thought must predate language in order for there to have been a need for a means of communication.
If that's the case, how are the thoughts "stored", so to speak? It seems like we use language to express thought because thought is simply internalized language. If we are relating thoughts that have nothing to do with language, how is the translation coming about? Could we perhaps establish a dictionary to get us from "thought jargon" into "language jargon"?
Also, someone had smartly pointed out that we need a definition for language. I don't have an answer here, so maybe someone with some expertise could hop in? If we define it as that which is necessary to convey ratiocinative thought, then the question becomes uninteresting. But we need to define language in a way that it's not too simple. I mean, cats purr when they're content (or scared) but I hesitate to call that a language.
Do you think she just pictures someone (maybe herself) signing? Or just floating hands?
As far as I know, the thought process would be with floating hands, at least when nothing else was around to - speak. To quote a Science Magazine (of the popular kind, not the entirely scientific kind):
Svaret er faktisk ja. Mange døve fortæller, at de i deres tanker â" og ogsÃ¥ i drømme â" ser hænder foran sig, der kommunikerer pÃ¥ tegnsprog. Forskere, der har studeret læseundervisningen af døve, har ogsÃ¥ fundet ud af, at mange âoversætterâ teksten til tegnsprog inde i hovedet Men ligesom man ikke kan sige, at alle hørende hele tiden tænker i en slags indre monolog, kan man heller ikke sige, at døve altid tænker pÃ¥ tegnsprog. Formentlig tænker vi alle sammen i en skøn blanding af ord, billeder, lyde og hvad der nu ellers kan indgÃ¥ i hjernens aktivitet.
(Ugly signs^) "The answer is yes. Many deaf people tell that they in their thoughts - and in their dreams too - see hands before them, that communicate through sign language. Scientists that has researched teaching of written language to deaf people have also found out that they "translate" the text into sign language in their heads. But just like you can't say that all hearing people thinks in some kind of inner monologue, you can't say that deaf people always think in sign language. Probably we all think in a nice blend of words, images, sounds and what else can be included in the brain's activity."
