-
Yesit would difficult to explain or understand.. but, thought via shapes of emotions, almost like in trance. everything just flows in rhythm.20% Voted for by Molzahn, nanoinfinity, Weydon, Moon Maiden, Kevan.
-
Ask yourself this...If thinking didn't exist, could we have language?16% Voted for by dollar, Weydon, SenseiRidgway, Black Swan Rose.Please login or register to comment.
Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!
-
Adding your comment: -
oh man
you got me there.
i guess the answere is no. -
nice question but im lost as to how this answers the original.
-
-
Simply, language is a product of thinking.
I wouldn't say thinking was a product of communication.
What say you?
-
-
lol,not sure who started that one(I'd guess weydon) but well played.
-
Language was automated and developed thinking over time. Realisations, convictions, emotions and reactions dominated before the mind developed through its ability to relate and order an inorderable world. Language could have come about through familiar 'gruntal' reactions to familiar stimuli. The familiarity of such verbal representation gave way to language, where a noise would be made in reaction to given stimuli. Basic to begin with, but complexity brought about the bonus of the ability of mental complexity, as well.
-
-
I agree. Language developed without the aid of abstract thinking; but abstract thinking could only develop (as we know it) with language.
-
-
the bird must remember the exact order of sounds in order to get the word to sound correct, not to mention the ability to put several words back to back to form sentences. Whether or not he knows what he is saying has nothing to do with the simple fact that it requires thinking to do this.
-
Language is only a physical way to communicate what you are already thinking. Everything derives first from thought.
-
But we, as humans CAN know what animals are thinking about....you don't need words. My dog goes to the door, I know he's thinking, "I have to pee." Dogs, in fact, have just as many facial expressions as people do. I can look at my dog and know EXACTLY what he's thinking. Maybe not in words, but in emotions.
-
But we, as humans CAN know what animals are thinking about....you don't need words. My dog goes to the door, I know he's thinking, "I have to pee." Dogs, in fact, have just as many facial expressions as people do. I can look at my dog and know EXACTLY what he's thinking. Maybe not in words, but in emotions.
-
Scientific evidence does not support you theory of just memicing
Alex the parrot is urged to count objects by Dr. Irene Pepperberg of the University of Arizona
I'm sorry my friend but I feel you are wrong. Not only do I own an Africa Grey parrot and speak from much experience in dealing with them but you need to read up alot on the world famous African Grey parrot called "Alex" who recently died. Scientific evidence offers tremendous evidence supporting that fact that they do have reasoning and problem solving ability:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_(parrot)
http://www.123compute.net/dreaming/knocking/alex.html
http://blog.sciam.com/index.php?title=an_interview_with_alex_the_african_grey&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070911154520.htm
http://media.www.thejusticeonline.com/media/storage/paper573/news/2006/09/12/Features/Gawk-Alex.Is.Smarter.Than.The.Average.Bird-2266635.shtml?norewrite200609130660&sourcedomain=www.thejusticeonline.com
http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,2167779,00.html
Alex's accomplishments are scientific proof that Parrots are not just memicing "ONLY".
They are able to grasp concepts and so MUCH more.
Sorry, but the overwhelming scientific evidence supports the theory that they are able to think. They are able to learn. This is fact not fiction and the evidence supports it. It's well documented. -
-
I have read some amazing things about the problem solving abilities of crows as well. Much of what birds do, though, has more to do with instinct and mimicry (eg. birdsongs and such).
-
-
Ask your self this, "What is thinking?"
-
How would you know?
No offence intended at all, but how do you know whether a parrot thinks before it talks or mimics? You aren't a parrot, so you would never be able to tell whether it thinks or not. -
How would you know?
No offence intended at all, but how do you know whether a parrot thinks before it talks or mimics? You aren't a parrot, so you would never be able to tell whether it thinks or not. -
How would you know?
No offence intended at all, but how do you know whether a parrot thinks before it talks or mimics? You aren't a parrot, so you would never be able to tell whether it thinks or not. -
How would you know?
No offence intended at all, but how do you know whether a parrot thinks before it talks or mimics? You aren't a parrot, so you would never be able to tell whether it thinks or not. -
one up
without the ego, would language exist.
thinking alone has no motivation for speech, the interaction of ego may better explain/support this .... -
we will think whether there is a a language or not/
Our minds can't stop thinking because if that happened then we are dead.even when we are dreaming,we think!
the language is a product of the mind!
but the mind is not a product of the language!
Please register or login to comment! It's fast and totally free!
-
-
wouldWould a deaf person think in sign language??12% Voted for by Kazrith, Weydon, Moon Maiden.Please login or register to comment.
Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!
-
Adding your comment:
-
I always ask people that, and people usually think it's a stupid question for some reason. Do they think in letters, moving lips, or signs??
Oddly, I've spoken with deaf people and I never even think to ask them... -
nono
you cannot answer a question with a question unless you are planning to expand on that question!!!
Im totally kidding, that is a good point. -
Probably not - maybe a sort of warped mental representation, but most likely not.
When you think, do you add a simulation of your vocal cords thrumming, your tongue lashing and your lips moving...?
The form of expression has almost no relation to the communication itself. -
that, kinda was the point i was making...
-
people do not think in a language, whethere they are deaf ASL speakers or speakers of english, japanese, hindi, arabic, etc.-language is arbitrary in itself; however we can and do think to ourselve on a conscious level. Most of the time though, we subconsciously think apart from language. The key thing to note here is to seperate language as a superficial notion from thought-they are independent of each other until we coordinate the two.
Please register or login to comment! It's fast and totally free!
-
-
Yeslanguage is not required to think. If that were the case a parrot could not know when to say certain phrases. A dog, cat or etc....could not be taught to do anything for that requires thinking on their part. Language is only a form of communication which requires thinking but thinking is not restricted to language.12% Voted for by Energizer Bunny, Weydon, Moon Maiden.Please login or register to comment.
Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!
-
Adding your comment:
-
Is mimicing the same as thinking? with regards to the parrot. Cat and dog training hhmmm i am not sure bout that one. Do they think? or do they learn through repition?
aplogies for the bad spelling im tired lol -
Applehead is right, this is not a sign of intellectual deliberation and highly aware cognitive evaluation. It is simply a response to the environment. It does not necessarily require any thought whatsoever; behaviour is chemical.
Thinking without language is seemingly, by our absurdly created value system, automatic and not self-guided, but a response or an instilled effect. -
yes parrots mimic but when they choose to say something when you have not been trying to get them to say it then the language is mimicing something you've said in the past but thinking took place in order for the bird to decide to speak at all. I believe language is separate from thinking. Yes, language requires thinking but thinking can be separate from language. If I choose to get up and shut my bedroom door righ now I would not be thinking in language form. I would not be thinking the words to myself. I would only be thinking of the action in itself. In my opinion people spend more time thinking in relation to action than language.
-
Not true. The bird did not need to think at all, it may simply have acted out of its instilled nature. It just did it.
-
the bird must remember the exact order of sounds in order to get the word to sound correct, not to mention the ability to put several words back to back to form sentences. Whether or not he knows what he is saying has nothing to do with the simple fact that it requires thinking to do this.
-
Again, I re-iterate. Not true. The bird did not need to think at all, it may simply have acted out of its own instilled nature. Think about how many sub-conscious reactions your mind can make, without you thinking. It is not some zombified three bit automation, but rather a complex array of individual, even learned reactions. If you do something for long enough, you even find that you can switch your entire brain off, or think of something completely different, and still automate the task as efficiently as if you were thinking about it (and sometimes I think you do an even better job of it that way).
There is nothing to say that complexity equates to thought. Thought is simply a manufactured product of the ability to be linguistic, and become complex in and of itself.
However, there are different forms of thought, maybe that it was what you are hinting at? Such as image representation etc. But as far as talking to yourself; you can't do it until some form of learned vocabulary system of communication develops. -
Your sub-conscious?
Your sub conscious is the same as thinking. Yes, you don't realise, or are actively aware of what you are thinking, but your sub-conscious thinks in an detached automatic way. There is something in your brain that automatically responds in whatever way is necessary, and that is your sub-conscious. Dreams are a reflection of your sub-conscious-do you think when you dream?
Please register or login to comment! It's fast and totally free!
-
-
Color.... Images.... Sound....The only time my thoughts are words is when I'm thinknig about what to say... that's self justifying in saying that withoput language I would need to think in words.... My other thoughts are in colors and sounds and vague images... Without language my brain would still function to the same extent as it does now.... Conversly with out language we wouldn't realy need to think to much at all because we would more than likely be divised in solitary or family based groups... The exchange of ideas wouldn't need to be so complicated...8% Voted for by Drabarno Ruv, Moon Maiden.Please login or register to comment.
Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!
-
Adding your comment:
-
hmm
I'd have to dissagree to what you said about you being able to think to the same extent, because without language we wouldn't be as intellictually smart as we are with language. But I understand what you're saying, I also find that when I think about things I use images, but as much as I do words. -
It's sort of like computers. They "think" in binary: electrical or magnetic values. They can "communicate" to us with english, but only by compiling and converting it to something we understand.
Human thought is somehting like that. it's much faster and simpler for the brain to "think" in a way which is natural to it: emotional impulses, images, maps, concepts (not in words), etc, than to be constrained by a limited dictionary of words that is language.
The result can be converted into language, but it often loses it's essence. (Ever been at a loss for words to explain a specific feeling or concept?)
Please register or login to comment! It's fast and totally free!
-
-
New Born ChildrenBabies have no language, but it seems to me that in order to begin to piece together the structure of language thet must have the capacity to reason, which seems to require thought8% Voted for by Dwn, Moon Maiden.Please login or register to comment.
Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!
-
Adding your comment:
-
I don't think that's right, in fact (from what I learned in my half term of psych101 :-) ) I thought that there was quite a bit of evidence that the brain is hard wired to learn language. I think this makes sense and it would mean that a lot of language acquisition is 'instinctual', or at least occurs without any kind of rational thought.
A good argument against you view is that language is learnt very easily before the age of seven (or thereabouts) and becomes more difficult thereafter. That is to say, as the rational mind gets stronger (as one becomes an adult), the ability to acquire language diminishes. I think this implies that language doesn't require thought but is learnt almost automatically by exposure, and that thought, in the sense of reasoning, can only fully develop after language has been acquired.
A. H. -
so ...you think that the learning of languge occures by osmosis? simply absorbed then becomes a funtioning tool? ...Im not sure that, that large concencus of oppinions that form the phyciactric and phycology institions scientific evedence is very acurate at all...but thats just me, if a whole lot of people whos oppinions were more respected than my own because of the number of people agreeing with them think differently, who am I to question.
-
-
No, not by osmosis. By a kind of neurological filtering system. It is kind of like the way in which some birds learn their calls; they are never taught them but simply sing randomly and, when they hit the right notes, their brain releases chemicals to let them know, this is a purely 'automatic' process that can lead to the learning of, and utilization of, a great deal of informations.
Obviously the human case is very different, but it is the same idea - the brain is structured so as to pick up language and learn it, just like learning to walk, eat etc.
A. H.
P. S. What do you think of my last argument?
"A good argument against you view is that language is learnt very easily before the age of seven (or thereabouts) and becomes more difficult thereafter. That is to say, as the rational mind gets stronger (as one becomes an adult), the ability to acquire language diminishes. I think this implies that language doesn't require thought but is learnt almost automatically by exposure, and that thought, in the sense of reasoning, can only fully develop after language has been acquired."
I think you should deal with this, rather than simply questioning the authority of my source.
-
-
Personaly, I think the brain is hardwired to think and reason, the fact that we learn easier at a younger age , as i understand it is due to human growth harmone (HGH) I think that a child learns language in the early stages by association with word and action, , reasoned assosiation. I also believe that a less cluttered mind has less to think upon and therefore is not hendered by interference in its ability to focus on what It (thinks) is important information
-
-
That's certainly an interesting idea but, as we are getting into areas that really rely on empirical data, I might have to wait until I have some more info and then get back to you.
Something I have heard, though, is that the Human growth hormone damages those parts of the brain that help acquire language and that is why we lose the ability to learn it so easily.
But, as I said, that is hearsay, so I'll need to do some research.
A. H.
-
Please register or login to comment! It's fast and totally free!
-
-
But of course.Interesting question, here is my answer. But Of course we would think! But mind you now, without a means to interpret our thoughts how could we be understood? There lies the true question.8% Voted for by Black Swan Rose, Moon Maiden.
-
I'm undecided.I don't think it's possible for a person or animal to NOT be able to think, but then there's the question as to how they organise their thoughts. When I'm trying to figure someting out in my head, I often talk to myself, and I believe everyone figures things out using language. If that is the case, how do you think people thought before laguage was invented?Voted for by Second.Please login or register to comment.
Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!
-
Adding your comment:
-
No, speaking for humans, language is not necessary to think, but yes language helps organise your thinking process much faster and in a timely manner. I guess, it is because of this reason that insects( as it appears) like wasps does not have to do much thinking as far as their activities are concerned, since they seem to be encoded or programmed (you may say) due to their very sophisticated nervous system.
Human Language, in its present form appears to be a mystery of sorts. Mystery because many experts in the field have not been able to give precise reasons, how language has developed, and continues to be the one real sophisticated difference which distinguish humans from other mammallians.
According to my little understanding, thinking as a mental process (in the conscious brain) is undertaken by all animals including insects and fish. Some one has said that language is the dress of our thought processes. Thoughts are the primal nerve charged with sensory data (in the form of image, sound, smell or feelings) which is relayed from one nerve cell to another (the physical nature of thought). This is basic.
The communication tool employed by humans is called 'language'. This can be in verbal form or sign form otherwise called as body language.
Use of words in a language is a developed phonetic representation of those signs and symbols previously used by our ancestors. And then it is passed on through the process of learning.
The previosly mentioned language sophistication is due to the remarkable way in which humans from each region, and sub-regions have developed their own unique phonetical words using the excellently developed instruments like the vocal chords (common term). The tongue and the lungs also plays an important role, i suppose.
Bees use a different kind of language, using motion and sound for the purpose of communication. Social animals find it necessary to interact in a correct and precise way to maximise and effectively manage their group survival against the given odds. Misunderstanding thus can be attributed as a result of the inability to convey proper meanings to ones thoughts. (Like to imagine - if you are not able to convey that an enemy is behind the bush, one can find oneself and his/her mate dead the next instance.)
Language is thus a developed way of expressing thoughts. Animals also thinks, using their own nerves and when it comes to convey a message they seem to use all necessary organs including sounds to express their urge to communicate. Dogs are good examples.
If i could bet, than i would rather like to believe that language was never invented. It went through a process. May be for millions of years, just like we have very good proofs of how the written language has developed in the last 5000 years. It was a slow and painstaking process, perhaps the single big acheivement of the developed, superior and volumneous brain structure (or was it simultaneous?).
Its a pretty good question you have asked. Would like to hear more oon this. -
Thanks for that Jacky although I am still wondering if we can really call reactions from animals thoughts? I mean do animals sit and comtemplate? if not why not and is this simply because their language is limited? Im not so sure.
-
There is nothing to suggest that animals, other than apes and possibly pigs, octopi, parrots, dogs and dolphins ever think at all. You can do many things without thinking.
It is necessary to define exactly what thinking is. Thinking could well be automatic, semi guided chemical instillments to the brain, automatic recall of events and feelings, or actions through instant-progressive realisations.
If we say though that thinking is only complex, self-guided deliberation where the end point reached can be different to the intentions of the starting point, then we are probably looking at linguistic only. Language provides structure and inspiration for realisations, convictions, emotions - all forms of instillment to work together in sync and allow a flow of various input that can eventually give the illusion of a complex collection of such instillments, and easy access to its continual construction.
(Note: Apparently octopi is now grammatically inferior to octopuses, due to the Greek origin of the plural. Was reading that somewhere the other day. I still like octopi though
)
-
Hi, Apple......wonder you must.....
Good qs......
Lets go a step at a time.
First lets see certain facts. Two human individuals cannot see exactly what the other is seeing. Similarly, no two individuals within a specie can think similarly..in exactly the same fashion or sequence (which we also call logic).
Therfore, it is clear that we as humans cannot know what animals are thinking about. But since the question is related to whether animals do think at all...makes it look like we need a little bit more insight into the basics.
Animals do think. Just like we assess, gauge and decipher the fellow humans being in our surrounding by studying his body language, words and series of behaviour-reactions, we similarly try and assess, gauge and read what animals are thinking by their behvaiour and patterns so exhibited. So their is a limitation. just like we have the limitation of correctly assessing our own sister or brother.
Coming to animals including humans, a cursory reading of any life science text book informs us that a reaction cannot take place without an impulse-conductor system in place, while we are considering the issue in the receptor-stimulus concept.
Dog reacts because his 'thoughts' tells him that his 'master' is home. For eg, the dog reacting to his master's presence is simply because of his thoughts suggesting to his mind (the controller) that his master has arrived at the door. The thought may be triggered by the sensory impulse - which is the smell or body odour of his master - received by his memory/mind, originating from his source of smell-distinction mechanism inbuilt in his nose. One can't call a dog remembering his 'master' after several years an instinctive reaction. One reason being, the recall is depended on memory. Thus we see that Dogs can think, as much as elephants, sharks and dolphins, and other animals can. Remembering is part of thinking process. The simple fact that they can recall or remember past events means that they have thought, just like we humans have.
I believe this takes care of all the Qs you asked.
I am not an animal behaviour scientist but since i am a kind of a woooNNNdering naturalist (bird watching and like) I do keep abreast of animal ethology and their environment - which is our environment too. Thanks -
Hi Tech
Lets define 'automatic' first. -
"The part of the nervous system that is functionally independent of thought control (involuntary)."
www.mentalhealthinkids.wisc.edu/pharm/012ph.html
It is assumed that nervous reactions are automated. Lets assume that more than this can be automated. -
not in words, but in emotion.
-
yes
yes
Please register or login to comment! It's fast and totally free!
-
-
Definitions, breadthIf language is defined as human language, specifically, and thinking as abstract rational/philosophical thought, then no - 'thinking' is intimately tied up with semantics, syntax, abstract concepts etc.Voted for by Alexander Hine.
However one could define 'thinking' and 'language' much more broadly than this and arrive at a very different result. For example, if we decide that subconscious drives or instincts could count as 'thinking', then language would not be necessary. Likewise, if we define 'language' as 'any and all communications between organisms' - well, then there would be nothing special about human language and, if there was no difference between our language and signals between dogs then we could hardly claim to 'think' any more than they do, at least not by virtue of our language.
As it stands, though, I think specifically human, abstract, rational, philosophical thought does rely (not exclusively of course) on language.
A. H. -
Thinking without languagesI think without language a lot. Visually, musically and some times synaesthetically.Voted for by Torbjorn.
Most people can think without language if they try. A good way to start is to listen to some ambient albums. Music or sounds with no lyrics. Something to boggle the imagination.
Even though you think you are saying something in your head, you're really just imagining false perceptions of whatever language you speak. You're never really talking to yourself, you're just perceiving your own brain waves!
Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!
Second
September 18, 2007
Edit | Reply
yes.
i didnt expect anyone to respond with such interest. I'd love to hear moreEnergizer Bunny
September 21, 2007
Edit | Reply
nanoinfinity
September 24, 2007
Alexander Hine
March 7, 2008
Edit | Reply
Please register or login to comment! It's fast and totally free!