This one should stir up things a bit. Oh, and if this does not seem like a post about writing… try harder. (grin)
I contend that what we can think is based upon the words we know. If this sounds at odds with the first post of the day, please review. I don’t think it is.
As you might imagine, I’ve said this before. Publicly. Want to guess the kind of replies I got?
- I can think without words
- Babies think
- Animals think
- and on and one and on
You can think without words? Really? Tell me about it. Oh, wait. You can’t tell me about it without words. Well, then… tell yourself about it. Oh. No, I guess not.
Newborn babies think? Really? What do they think about? Oh, and how do you know?
I suspect that a lot of what people call wordless thinking is really feeling. We can certainly feel things. Pain. Hunger. Thirst. But to think about it, we need words.
Oh, and here comes the zinger. If you want more thoughts… if you want bigger thoughts… learn more words.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio... and isn't it time you experienced some of them?
{ 12 comments… read them below or add one }
Thought provoking post . . .
if only I could find the right words. : )
so if there was no word for hot you could not think it is hot in this room? Before the word hot the brain had no concept of hot. How do words start, does not a thought come and a word follow? Look at children s lessons and you will see many pictures to help learn words and concepts. If thougts and words were linked would it be possible to have a hard time expressing my thoughts in words. Think of your mother.Tell me in words what she looks like well enough so I would recognize her on sight. While it is true that we have this inner monologue running most of the time perhaps this is a side effect of thinking not a cause, or requirement. A mute could teach me to cook, would the brain have to translate everything into words to be thought about?
I could talk about strawberries all day but till you taste one can you truly say you can think about it. On the other hand if I eat something that has no name that I am aware of can I think about it later, even with no word for it?
Hi, Steve. I’ll be addressing this in greater depth in the next day or so, but for now let me say that I understand your reaction to my post. You are not alone in how you feel about this.
You are certainly right that you can experience being hot without having a word for it. You can experience the taste of strawberries without ever having any kind of vocabulary at all.
One of the problems that always arises when this conversation is started is the understanable confusion between feeling and actual thought.
What I am getting at is the ability of the mind to rationalizie, to organize, and to describe that which happens around it.
Watch for more on this soon. In the meantime, consider reading Steven Pinker on linguistics. I “think” you would find him very interesting.
I think you are confusing thought with description. Animals can deceive, they can organize their homes, they make decisions. And what of our prehuman ancestors? This would somehow suggest that thought was invented by humans. Allow me to quote einstein: “The words of the language, as they are written and spoken, do not seem to play any role in my mechanism of thought.”
I feel like how we synthesize concepts adds a lot more depth of thought and new possibilities than new words. As far as the idea that thinking is only a matter of words, that’s pretty limiting. The brain is capable of a lot, and you’re writing off a lot of that power. A lot of stuff you said seems like you didn’t really think about it too hard. We can feel things, but need words to think about them? What are memories, then? And to imply animals and babies don’t think, because someone can’t tell you what they think about? Maybe you should define thought. If to you a thought is something that can be written in human languages… Well yeah, congratulations, you are right by your own definition. Otherwise, I don’t think I follow. Basically, I’m calling BS on this one.
Hi, Tucker
Even as I wrote that piece (and yes, I have thought quite a bit about it), I expected some people to disagree. You are certainly right that a more disciplined definition of thought is needed. Of course there is some kind of cognitive process going on in the minds of animals and infants.
Unfortunately most definitions of “thought” are redundant, a “thought is thinking” kind of thing.
In any event, welcome and thank you for starting the conversation. I would be happy to hear how you define human thought. This is a subject which fascinates me, and I hope to continue to learn about it.
Sorry to have come off as harsh, then, I get touchy when I hear what sounds like elevating human characteristics, such as language, to be above anything else. I agree, most definitions of thoughts are redundant. The noun “thought” seems like a word I’d want to avoid if I was trying to speak technically (I’m sure I’ll use it in conversation at times), because I don’t think it’s a realistic way of looking at the intangible mass of brain function. It’s easier for us to deal with the on-going thought process if we separate it into convenient parts (thoughts, emotions, tactile sensations, feelings, etc), but for me that’s just not how it works. At any time, chances are more is going through my mind than I am aware of; echoing phrases, musical passages, memories of conversations, etc. So in this case, if you wanted to use the word thought it would make sense to refer to the words that come out when we try to separate all of this and pick out an idea we want to communicate. But in reality, I don’t really see “thoughts” in this sense and the actual process of thinking them to be as related as I feel like they are generally perceived to be. Thinking never stops, and is rarely as simple as a sentence that can be captured in words regardless of how diverse one’s vocabulary is.
Humans are no golden standard to judge thought or communication or anything else. And writing is at best only an approximation; as far as communicating thoughts goes, it represents that one conscious stream of words you put together but oftentimes leaves out the huge array of other feelings and sensations and things that were going on at that time. To think of writing as something more than simply what it is – an assembly of words – it seems to me that face to face communication is a much better way of explaining one’s self and sharing ideas. More than face to face verbal communication, sharing experiences is an even more powerful way of communicating. I’m figuring you have a specific attachment to writing, based on what you said at the top here; I have no objection to this. Many of the greatest artistic achievements come from an unwavering passion for the artist’s discipline. But it is not good to let that attachment lead to other conclusions, such as that thoughts, as you define them, are in any sense a realistic way of looking at cognition – a constant, murky process more akin to an ocean than to a stream of carefully chosen words.
I’ll leave off after this, but this is the most fundamental objection that I have to what you’ve said. “If you want more thoughts… if you want bigger thoughts… learn more words.” For your sake, I hope this was more to make a point or provoke a reaction than something you internalize and strive for. While words are something necessary for practical living in every society I’m aware of, I would never let my consciousness be limited by words that someone else invented or feel that my own progress fundamentally requires that I learn more of them. You do realize that these words are all invented, yes? And you’re willing to let your intellectual ceiling be determined by a lot of dead people? You do not have to live this way. To suggest that those who have the biggest vocabulary have the most depth of thought sounds classist to me. Beyond that, some of the most effective and evocative things I have ever read or heard were minimalistic or otherwise simple.
Perhaps if you didn’t frame intellectual value around something like language – something easily manipulated, something that is external to your own feeling, something that is impermanent – and shifted to something more personal, enduring, and most importantly internal, you would find that a lot of things seem very different.
Hi, again, Tucker
Glad you came back. I hope you know that your comments are always welcome.
As for the topic, I am a bit of a rabble-rouser– you got me on that. But I am also a person constantly looking for ideas and information. I know, for instance, that what I hold as true today is likely to be untrue tomorrow. I’ve made peace with that.
Mind is not stagnant, even for people who make a point of not learning. We get new data constantly and we cannot help be touched by it.
Again, thanks for returning.
Interesting stuff. If you cannot think without words then how do you think about that which you have no words for? I came across an article in which the author claimed that before man invented language he could not create tools. Whats your opinion on that theory? If humans need words to think why are deaf people just as intelligent as anyone else? Do they think in written language? This is highly interesting theory you have. Would you put money down on it?
Hi, Johnjoe
You’ve hit the nail on the head.
There clearly must be a level at which we can formulate concepts and actions pre-language.
The point I’m trying to make is that language far extends our ability to think, to reason, and to grow, especially for those who learn additional languages.
Consider how learning the language of another land changes the way one thinks. Or learning music, mathematics or logic. Each new layer of concepts and vocabularies expand our minds, give us a better hold on the world.
I have recently had to rethink some of my “theory”, due to the works on language and thought of Steven Pinker. I haven’t assimilated it all yet, but the more I learn, the more I can think. I think.
Welcome to the discussion!
I agree with you there. Learning langauge definitely opens up new pathways in our brains and allows us to think in ways we previously may have had trouble with. I only speak 1 language but I learned the basics of French, Spanish and Russian and that gave me a much greater understanding of not only how language works but logic itself. I also learned PHP and I’m learning a bit of C++ and that has greatly increased my understanding of logic and as a result ability to manipulate logic. Interestingly enough learning to juggle causes the gray matter in the brain to grow by 3%. Various logic based games can significantly increase ones mental abilities over time. The way I see it learning language, music, mathematics, philosophy, programming, juggling etc. open up various pathways in the brain (analogous to building roads to pave the way for the new traffic) and provide us with sets of mental tools we can use to create, analyze and connect concepts. The more you learn the more dimensions are added to your thinking capabilities. Since different languages are formed differently they would open up different sets of pathways and provide different sets of tools thats why I think people who speak different languages think differently.
“The more I learn the more I can think” – words of wisdom. That is one thing I can also say with absolute certainty. About 5 years ago I realized I had a passion for science so decided to get into a science based university course as a mature student and since then I’ve learned all the maths, chemistry, physics, biology etc. that I needed to know to get where I am now and I can honestly say my thinking capabilities have far exceeded what they were before I started studying all this. I think it all triggered the opening of new pathways especially in the logical areas of my brain. Before I was into shamanism, ontology and philosophy and I think all that opened up pathways in god knows what parts of my brain and endowed me with decent ontology skills but I could never communicate any of my ideas nowadays though I don’t have too much trouble communicating my ideas and thinking logically and I believe learning mathematics and programming had something to do with that.
Actually, I ‘believe’ not ‘think’ that everyone is ‘right’ ‘on’ on this one. From Ludwig Wittgenstein, he makes the distinction that language is the Public purview of thought. There can be he says no ‘private language’. But we do have private thoughts. To make them public, and thus to be rule governed by the codes of language and public behavior, it is the words that will govern us, and govern our thought. The better you can speak the better your chances are for ‘survival’ within the ‘public’ sphere.
As far as languages go, apart from words, I hold there are many – from music, to the painter’s brush strokes, to setting up furniture in the house. These too convey symbolisms, which can be agreed upon but are possibly less ‘rigid’ than the parameters of verbal and written codifications. But still the bees dance, and the dophins communicate with one another. The baby cries and we understand his/her needs. We sigh, and convey our thought/emotion. We talk of body language.
The public sphere of communication is thus distinguished by the philosophers from these other from of symbolism. Ludwig will still insist that language is a ‘way of life’; that we should not be able to understand the speech of a lion, that sentences are rule governed, but we don’t know precisely how….and all the rest of the arguments.
If the proof is in the pudding, I would even be able to convince you of this, unless I used words. If I merely sighed about it you would either think I couldn’t follow what you were saying, or that I had given up my prerogative of ‘reason’. The ‘poetic’ utterances of the insane, is an example perhaps of the use of ‘private language’. Please see Portals of Paradox!!grin grin