Language system?!

[Freethinker]

You cannot think about anything if you don't have a "word" for it. If an equivalent of the word for ten (10) is not in your language, you cannot count to ten.

What yoou are saying is that people born without sight or hearing, since they can not learn language till much later, they are not able to think until then?

 

Or further exactly how does one learn if one is not able to think? How does one first learn language if they are not able to think in order to learn the language? It seems obvious that thinking is a seperate issue. Or noe one would ahve ever been able to think enough to have developed a launguage because no one would have had language to allow them to think in the first palce.

 

Further, words FOR things do not exist until the thing does or atleast is being invented. Thus according to your requirements ("You cannot think about anything if you don't have a "word" for it") we could have never had thought about/ invented anything.

[Freethinker]

It seems to imply that thinking is an 'action of the mind'.

An action/ process yes. What else would the mind do? What other function does it serve? It THINKS and that is it.

[Freethinker]

Language is any symbol that is used to represent a real world counterpart. Thus, in order to think beyond here and now, one needs to symbolize something internally, but to think in the here and now, no mind representation is necessary. When moving through the jungle, if you are attacked by a tiger, you don't think "Tiger! Run!" you just do it, there is no need to symbolize. But later on, when reflecting on the attack which you successfully escaped, you need to symbolize the tiger, hence language.

What I seem to detect in most replies is some a priori acceptance of sound. Verbal language. taking the above example and leaving written language out right now (writing can not be REQUIRED for language to exist) when you suggest that "later on, when reflecting on the attack which you successfully escaped, you need to symbolize the tiger, hence language". But this assumes that some specific "word" is known to symbolize this animal. Or that words even exist for this person. And futher that they had had previous experience and recognize the animal. Would this person be unable to "think" about the experience with this other creature if they did not have a word for it? A phonetic string that symbolizes it? What if this person was deaf in a aborignal tribe and was not aware of what sound/ words were? Yet this person would have to think about the experience. They would not have a specific symbolic "word" for it or anything.

 

And what is being said is this person would be incapable of thinking. Not because of any physiological issues with their brain, just their hearing. All that brain, but because they do not have any concept of "words" they can't use it?

[TINNY]

An action/ process yes. What else would the mind do? What other function does it serve? It THINKS and that is it.

so unconscious processes of the body directed by the brain through neurons are all part of thinking? or is the mind separate from the brain?

[Tim_Lou]

"Yet this person would have to think about the experience. They would not have a specific symbolic "word" for it or anything."

 

but is it rational thinking or irrational?

 

assume that the guy sees the tiger for the another time, would the "image" be the same?

if this image is same, which means that it represents a situation, therefore it is language.

 

i would say language is simply a simplification of these images and sounds.

(like the ancient chinese, they see a turtle, they draw a picture of it..... and the picture becomes the chinese word "turtle" 龜 <--dont know if you can see it)

 

 

if the image is irrational, then it would be meaningless.

[lindagarrette]

What yoou are saying is that people born without sight or hearing, since they can not learn language till much later, they are not able to think until then?

NO, FT. What I am saying is that if you don't have a representative word for 10 you can't count to 10. If there is no need for your culture to recognize the imporaance of any quantity greater than, say, three, then the concept of three objects and the word representing "three" will not exist in your culture. The scientivic conclusion may well be that thinking is not possible without language, which so far stands. If you have no words for anything, then you cannot be thinking.

 

You should look up the references I cited. What may seem obvious to you is not necessarily so. Also, don't confuse verbal expressions or images with word representations.

[pgrmdave]

when you suggest that "later on, when reflecting on the attack which you successfully escaped, you need to symbolize the tiger, hence language". But this assumes that some specific "word" is known to symbolize this animal.

 

I don't necessarily mean a spoken "word", but a symbol used by the mind to represent the tiger. The symbol doesn't need to be any more complex than simply imagining it, so it doesn't need to be anything like a spoken word.

[pgrmdave]

Would a language need to be repeatable? As in, if I think about something with a different symbol each time, is it a language, or does a language require that I always use the same symbol?

[Aki]

Somethings have more than one word/symbol to express it, so I don't think a language requires that people always use the same word/symbol to represent something. Like if we're talking about a jacket, we can always call it a coat, a suit, a fur.

[Tormod]

By most living things, I meant mostly plants, single celled organisms, and similar things, which don't appear to learn or plan.

This is an interesting issue. Plants can communicate at least chemically.

 

Here is an interesting article from the Washington Times:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/metro/20030702-094628-2328r.htm

[pgrmdave]

They can communicate information, but does that mean that they have language?

[alexander]

Wow, I've been trying to post here, but really havent had the time for it, anyways.

Freethinker, i dont dispute that the article could be bogus, but it could be at least a theory to consider...

They can communicate information, but does that mean that they have language?

Communication is the process of exchanging information usually via a common system of symbols.

I guess that this doesnt mean that plants have a common language as we understand it, but rather they have a primitive way of communication, and i dont mean that producing and receiving and identifying certain chemicals is primitive in any way, but their communication style resembles more of drawing pictures on the walls than writing books. Then you could argue that drawing pictures isnt a form of communication, but I think for humans it is one form of communication that everyone can understand (aside from people that cant see and people whose senses are scambled). Think about it, if you write a book on survival, only people who are trained to read that language can understand how to utilize their basic skills, what to eat and how to make tools, but if you show anyone a set of pictures(or diagrams) that shows humans hunting and using things to make tools and then use them, i think that most of them would understand what they eat and how to get it, how to make tools and so forth...

[pgrmdave]

But communication is only a part of a language. Inanimate objects can communicate information, but that does not mean that they have a language.

[Tormod]

But communication is only a part of a language. Inanimate objects can communicate information, but that does not mean that they have a language.

So what is your definition of a language?

[Freethinker]

So what is your definition of a language?

Language - Etymology: Middle English, from Old French, from langue tongue, language, from Latin lingua

 

Interesting. As such "language" requires verbal communications. I doubt that this is either how it is being used here or is being used in general discussions by people in general. Generally speaking that is.

[Tim_Lou]

what about the pictures that were drawn by the ancient "cave men"?

 

some of they them changed into some of today's languages...

so, whats the differences between picutres and languages?

[lindagarrette]

Language is more than just a form of communication. It is a system, with rules that have to be understood by members of the group.