It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


You can only think what You can say.

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 02:08 PM

Originally posted by Nola213
There are definitely feelings, and ideas I have that there are no known words "to my knowledge" that describe it.

This explains it. It is out there.

We can experience what we perceive. If we had no language we could still watch a "bee fly around", however, we could not share it unless of course we go on the course of telepathy which is purely speculative.

We CAN think purely in images, but this is called imagination. Do you consider imagination to be "thought"? It could be considered to be "thought", thought without words, which is why it is called imagination.

But there is a word with a defining concept for every image. Language is imperative for us to share knowledge with one another. There are some words that are not images, rather they explain concepts, such as the word "hypothetical". There's no image that explains it, it is a concept.

posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 02:16 PM
That is why you cannot understand most of original yoga texts. English lacks words with that meaning. For example "mudaka" is not an "idiot" - it is "a person incapable to conscious concentration".

posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 02:20 PM
reply to post by mahasvin

How does it lack words for the meaning if you just described it?

A single word, sure. But why be limited? If it takes more than one word to describe something then go for it.

Is anyone truly incapable of conscious concentration? Not unless they're born with encephalized congenital defects.

posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 02:30 PM
Thoughts can have meanings without words.
Granted, many thoughts do have words attached, not all have words associated with them.

Take for instance, love. It is a feeling, but it is also a thought of good will. You don't need for someone to spell it out and explain it to understand it. It is everywhere, and you can just feel it. You don't even need words to describe how it feels or to think of it.

Many things can be said without saying anything at all.

But that's just how I feel. I don't know if words describe your every thoughts, but just not mine.

[edit on 9/21/2008 by FadeToBlack]

posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 02:36 PM
reply to post by FadeToBlack

I think what the Title of the O.P. is really meant to intend is that there is a word for every feeling, emotion, concept and image. But all of those must be as one, because for some words alone there are only concepts and no images.

That you can not explain anything beyond that which objectively exists to be truthful, it must only be imagination and faith and has no bearing on reality, other than explaining the concept of non-existence.

[edit on 21-9-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 02:38 PM
reply to post by schrodingers dog

Hey dog, good post on communication. Hope nothing gets lost in translation. I have often thought that humans are really ignorant creatures who are evolving. And along with the spirit of your thread, I'd like to say that humanity is in the process of defining itself, and if that isn't difficult enough.. we have to deal with multiple languages. I always thought about... hey how does that Chinese guy feel about that issue? Can not communicate... Does Not Compute... Very frustrating to say the least. I realize there are Rosetta Stone like tools out there, but hell I am too lazy to learn a new language at my age... And many of the older folks think they can't use a computer or do email.. Dang aren't we slacking as a species.

Also, It always puzzled me why we as a species cannot communicate with other species on our own planet, how the hell would we communicate with ET? Like for example, my dog... I know he is smart because he obeys commands, etc. But the only talking he does, sounds like "woof woof" with and occasional yawn. He is slacking too I suppose.

But bottom line is that we must evolve as a specifies to find short-cut communication solutions, and hopeful those goals will be accomplished in the future. I think that.. in order for use to evolve to the next level, we must develop our built-in senses to be more in tune with our environment. I really think we posses more capabilities that we know... we are just not fully aware of them. Nice post, thanks for letting me share.

posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 02:41 PM
reply to post by mapsurfer_

It would take an economy and a society working together as a civilization to create an interstellar craft. Any E.T. would for sure have a form of their own communication. Since the concepts are universal and eternal, all we'd have to do is figure out how to convert, such as we do with the languages on our own planet.

posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 04:38 PM
reply to post by mapsurfer_

I really believe that the next evolutionary step for humanity is the shedding of language, though we're rushing to it. There is so much of our brains that remains unused and unexplored, but we're stuck at the at the most basic levels of knowledge and communication. The mind is an extraordinary tool, but it must be still to make use of it efficiently. In a seeming paradox, the more you stop thinking, the better it works.

posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 04:41 PM
First of all, I'm truely sorry but I haven't read the thread page to page (nor do I have the time to), but I just had to get this across.

As far as the brain being confined by our use of words, it simply is not true. The most tangible experiment to show that, are the cases in which persons were 'cured' of their epilepsy by cutting the corpsus callosum - the connection between the two brain halves. In these cases, interpretations of the visual inputs by one half of the brain were 'cut loose' from the interpretations of the visual input in the other half. Basically this means that anything seen in the left field of the eyesight (not the input of the left eye, but the left field of both eyes) gets processed by the right hemisphere, and vice versa. Since our verbal processing mostly happens on only one side, subjects that were tested could not describe (e.g. put to words) an object they would see in one half of the visual field, but they could draw it; objects in the other field however were no problem to describe, but they could not be drawn.

The brain operates in a complex way; if everything were to be rerouted through only one mechanism (be it our verbose capabiilities), it would work much too slow and we would be more like walking dictionaries.

However, there is something called "conceptual association" - basically meaning that whatever we are currently thinking about is activating our mental concepts. Those concepts are linked to other 'nearby' concepts, which get activated as well, as a physical side-effect (any excitation in the brain spreads a little) - and through a conceptual spread activation mechanism.

This activation mechanism extends beyond words, but words do play a large role in our spread mechanism; they are an incredible direct way to activate those concepts. (for example, smokers will feel a sudden urge when they read this word: "cigarette"). Words are also part of the concepts, so that they will be activated when its concept is.

Thinking about a concept activates it. Not only that, but the currently activated concepts will probably populate your thoughts (either just by themselves or through more spreading).

All combined, every word you read activates concepts which tell you the content of what you read, but also activates the concepts related to the words you just read. In the thought process that leads to the reply, you will probably be 'confined' to the currently activated concepts, which are most visible to our consciousness in the form of words (until we learn to meditate?). What is visible to us is what we want to show to others.

There it is, your circle of words; confinement to our vocabulary. It is not our brain that works through words; it is our ability to communicate. At the same time do new words extend the depth and therefore the purpose of communication.

As long as we keep focusing on showing others what is visible to us instead of extending our vision inside us, we will be confined to a large extent.

posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 05:29 PM
Random thoughts on the OP and the discussion...

Your title isn't quite correct. If lost the power of speech, I would still be able to think in words. I am not limited by what I can actually SAY. It is more that my thoughts are structured by my language. I think in words because I know and understand words, but I don't have to be able to SAY the words in order to think them.

I speak another language besides English, and I have found that after spending a couple of weeks in Germany with my relatives, I am thinking in German and it takes me a while to consciously switch back to English. Of course my husband thought it was utterly ridiculous that I claimed to be having to translate my thoughts into English until I switched back over, but that's how it was.

I also know that there are words I understand in German that I can't translate into English. I know the concept, and I can try to explain it in English using a paragraph or so, but it still doesn't quite capture the actual concept/meaning of the German word. The odd thing is, I sort of realize that I didn't have a concept of that word (ärgerlich is the word I'm thinking of) until I heard people use it in German enough to gain an understanding of what it meant. It sort of means irritable, but not precisely. It sort of means grumpy, or easily annoyed, but not precisely, and the German word also implies that it's a temporary condition like being mad .. but it's not being mad .. it's more like being in a mood such that one is more easily annoyed or aggravated than usual, but .. never mind, I just can't adequately explain it in English. You see?

So I think perhaps what you are trying to express is that once we learn language, language becomes the structure for our thoughts. An infant feels discomfort in the area of its abdomen and cries, and may have some concept or understanding that someone will come and feed it, and the discomfort will go away. As an adult I feel that and instantly think "I'm hungry." The feeling is the same, but language has given a name to it, and structure in the sense that the thought of "I'm hungry" leads to the thought that I need to eat something because I have a name for it, hunger, and my understanding of the word hunger leads me inevitably to think that I need food.

I was able to have feelings and perhaps thoughts before I had language, but now that I have language, my thoughts are usually structured in terms of language because it is a logical and meaningful system for processing ideas, feelings, and thoughts and solving problems. On the other hand I can daydream (or dream) without words by visualizing what I'm thinking.

So anyway, that's my take on it. For most people, once we learn a language our thinking becomes structured and defined by the terms and concepts of that language.

[edit on 21-9-2008 by Heike]

posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 05:34 PM
reply to post by Heike

Yes, Heike nailed it. Consider her post the new OP.

Or at least an addendum to it.

[edit on 9/21/2008 by schrodingers dog]

posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 06:03 PM
We go from cavemen with no words, into a society with plenty (take a peek at the dictionary, scary I know).

Your idea sounds possible, but when comparing it to how much humans have evolved I find it to be not logical at all.

posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 06:04 PM

Originally posted by FritosBBQTwist
We go from cavemen with no words, into a society with plenty (take a peek at the dictionary, scary I know).

Your idea sounds possible, but when comparing it to how much humans have evolved I find it to be not logical at all.

They seem to me to have evolve quite proportionally to the evolution of language.

posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 06:09 PM

Originally posted by schrodingers dog

Originally posted by FritosBBQTwist
We go from cavemen with no words, into a society with plenty (take a peek at the dictionary, scary I know).

Your idea sounds possible, but when comparing it to how much humans have evolved I find it to be not logical at all.

They seem to me to have evolve quite proportionally to the evolution of language.

I think I misunderstood your post.

I believe we will always be able to "feel" a certain way, but with our knowledge of a variety of words meaning the same thing in different altercations, it is easily more expressed. Is that what you meant and were wondering if anyone agreed to it?

Restriction of words in a language will make it harder to show how we feel, but that does not change how we feel and if there are not words to express the specific way we do feel, I am sure another way of expressing those feelings will be found.

posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 06:10 PM
OP, I agree and disagre with you here.
In my opinion, we can think whatever we want in whichever degree of abstractness, and we well be able to understand ourselves, but it's impossible to communicate what you mean without using some variety of language.

AS SUCH, for example, group A and group B both have their own respective language. The groups are just as intelligent, just as innovative, just as curious, &c. They both have the exact same capability to construct their own theories on everything. HOWEVER, group A has a lesser vocabulary than group B. SO, group A's philosophers can't communicate or write down their ideas nearly as well as group B can. There is, by the way, a solution, and that's LOANWORDS!
Like "schadenfreude" and "steppe". We didn't have words for them in our own language, so we borrowed words from German and Russian and every other language with its own words for things. I'm sure that English has its own few of these, too.

SO YES, I do think that language can impede our ability to COMMUNICATE our thoughts and to organise them and such, but it certainly does not impede on our ability to think. Though it may help, because sometimes people find it easier to think something and understand/comprehend it if they think it in words. Sometimes, that is.

posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 06:16 PM
I just read Heikes post.

I think you are looking into the evolution of language into a deeper meaning, which by all means is not a bad thing.

To put it simple, it just shows that having a larger vocabulary will make you a more fluent speaker and easier to understand.

The way we are looking into in this thread shows the foundation on how language is used...which as I said in my previous post; it is not a bad thing to look for a deeper meaning as it gives a much better appreciation for a subject.


I am not trying to steal your thunder, as your posts alone just made me more aware of truly how important the advancement of a vocabulary can be, and I am only saying this to see that If I understand your post and meaning behind it?

posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 06:35 PM
The next step in language is the progression of HCS (Holographic Communicative Syntax) See demo:

[edit on 21-9-2008 by Epsillion70]

posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 07:19 PM
Posting again for the sake of applying a little common sense:

You can conceptualize things without being able to verbally speak about it. How does a mute/deaf person think?

Are you saying he doesn't think if that person cannot speak or hear?

If you have a thought, of COURSE you CAN put it in the words, because the nature of words are to describe what we experience. But you can have thoughts and concepts without needing words.

I don't get why people are jumping on this claiming "Star and Flag" - are you just jumping on this just for the sake of posting something or did you actually think about what is being said.

posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 08:19 PM
reply to post by FritosBBQTwist

I shall try to expand/clarify my idea using analogy. For this analogy, think of words as Lego blocks (toy building blocks/building tools for children).

When a child has no Legos, he can still imagine and conceptualize in his mind, but he can not build anything, either to see if its construction is sound, or to show it to anyone else. He may, in his own mind, have pictures or understandings of things that he sees, and experiences, but they are fleeting and difficult to grasp.

Give this child a basic set of Legos and some ideas or pictures, and he can build things to show other people what is in his mind. He can also build what he imagines for himself, to see if it "stands" as he thinks it will, and then examine it after he has built it, for the Legos make it easier to grasp and work with. This child can still imagine and have concepts of things he does not have the Legos to build, but again he can not show these more complicated concepts to others nor examine them as fully.

Now give the child a more advanced set of Legos with more shapes and perhaps moving parts. Now he can build the more advanced things he has been imagining and show them to others, and also the shapes and pieces will spark ideas for more things to build. He can build what he sees in the real world, build most of what he can imagine in his head, and build what he is shown pictures or images of, and perhaps even build things that he is only told about, if he has a good skills. He can test out more advanced concepts to see if they work, and get other people to look at them and give him feedback. His ability to share his concepts with others now increases because he has Legos for things he has only imagined before, but also the new Legos increase his thinking and imagination and give him new concepts by sparking ideas for more things that could be built. It is a two-way process, not one-way.

Eventually the child may want to build things he has conceived in his mind, but there are no Legos that will allow him to build them. They do not exist. Given the tools, he may go a step further and create his own Legos in order to build the things he imagines and show them to others.

Words are the building blocks for our thoughts and our language. The more words we know, the more tools we have to express thoughts and concepts. New words that we learn and use may also lead to new ideas, new ways of looking at things, and new understandings.

For a mildly humorous example, Freud would probably never have come up with his theories if his vocabulary had never gotten past the "See Dick and Jane run" level. Or, try to imagine Shakespeare's plays without the extensive vocabulary he used.

posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 08:45 PM
totaly wrong..

I can only say what i think... its how the brain works...

u dont say something u havent thought of yet..

dumb ass post

new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in