It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Is language needed for thinking?

page: 2
22
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 9 2014 @ 11:41 PM
link   
reply to post by anonentity
 


Wouldn't thinking absent the use of language be similar to what meditation is?




posted on Feb, 9 2014 @ 11:48 PM
link   
You wouldn't need language to think. Think about memorizing a view of your home, the place you live in. Do you need language to memorize something you see?

Humans have a primordial language. All animals do. This primordial language utilizes sounds that are incorporated into all languages. We are taught to disregard our primordial language sometimes but lots of these sounds are also incorporated into our languages. They have taught us an alternative meaning for some of these sounds...hence the tower of babble was formed.



posted on Feb, 9 2014 @ 11:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Domo1
 


Medial cortical structures and subcortical medial structures are the most ancient parts of our brain, and they deal mostly with consolidating affective experience with the various needs that animals require i.e. seeking (for food), rage and fear (to protect itself) lust (to reproduce) care (in the case of mammals, to enhance survivability) and play (also in mammals, to foster social skills and seeking prowess).


Heres the breakdown: medial cortical structures refers to the areas of the brain that are along the midline - the center - in alignment with the brainstem. "Medial cortical areas" are those areas of the cortex - which means "outer surface" - a very thin layer of neurons which basically control our more complex functions. The middle areas of this part of the brain, in the frontal love (front of the head, at level with the eyes) are ancient - hence homo neanderthalis, homo erectus, apes, monkeys, etc, all have this brain region. Simply look at their skull shape - its practically the same. Conversely, humans have a more rounded and symmetrically shaped head with a "balance" between the front and back.

Subsortical medial structures are the same thing as cortical medial structures, except they are beneath (sub) the cortex. Those areas located at the midline - the middle area - are the most ancient part of the vertebrate brain, evolved first in reptiles and lower mammals. Some neuroscientists posit that mammals have 7 primary emotions, all clusters and spawning from regions deep within the brains midline region - this being the hypothalamus, the nucleus accumbens, and the periaqueductal grey. Basically, lower limbic system and upper brain stem regions. This is where the neurochemicals which generate SEEKING, FEAR, RAGE, LUST, GRIEF, CARE and PLAY are most heavily produced. Hence, if you destroy these areas of the brain in rats, or monkeys, you essentially eliminate their affective (emotional) experience. They are barely awake. On the other hand, if you destroy higher subcortical regions, like the thalamus, or striatum, or amygdala, you produce less severe effects in emotion.

My whole point in mentioning this was, homo neanderthalis lacked those areas in the human brain which make us so fundamentally different from them and every other creature which has ever existed on earth. Neanderthals were, like other mammals and primates, preoccupied with survival, with only a rudimentary sense of value and spirituality. Though, it is worth mentioning that some of the oldest cave paintings we know of were probably done by neanderthals. This implies that they had a sophisticated layering of neural information processing that permitted more abstract emotions like awe and wonder. But, unfortunately for them, they simply lacked the working memory to contend with the more sophisticated homo sapians.



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 12:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Astrocyte
 


I agree one can't understand language without concepts. Where I part ways with your reasoning is that the two evolved/developed together. Still, there is no need for language without something to communicate.

Which came first the chicken or the egg...Neither, the rooster came first...cough, cough.

Leave the lobes and evolution out of the equation for a minute. Look at a baby. It has no language but has the rudimentary feeling of discomforts. Pains, hunger, so on. It often communicates these via crying. The parent, also with any clarification via language, is forced to follow a protocol, a sequence to find the issue, feeding, checking the diaper, looking for rash/injury, so on until the crying stops. End of communication.LOL.

The unspoken look between two people instantly communicating and knowing they've got what the other is thinking. Facial expressions, body "language"...all communicate without words and probably developed long before "language"...especially in it's proper definition being a set of "words" .

I am convinced, that one thinks in concepts and ideas...then, through habit and training converts that into words.

Of course, language and communication speeds the development of concepts. That's education. Life and livingness or formal.

Then again, what do I know.
edit on 10-2-2014 by nwtrucker because: grammar



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 12:25 AM
link   
reply to post by anonentity
 


I think that for every sensation that you have, you have an awareness that accompanies it.

Thus, for every sensation, there is an awareness that can be adapted into a learning style for learning other sensations.

Maybe it is growth of consciousness?
edit on 2/10/2014 by Bleeeeep because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 01:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Bleeeeep
 


Two ideas to throw into this incredible mix: symbol and referent every word in a language can be thought of a symbol, which refers to something, its referent. For instance the word "Elephant" refers to - or points to - a set of experiences and attributes that make up an elephant. The question to me is, can the brain have symbols and referents without language? I think it could. A monkey might have a symbolic picture of a stick in its mind, which represents all sticks it might find, so it can reason about sticks in general, and have thoughts like "if I could find a stick I could get at those bugs to eat them", but with pictures, not words.



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 01:08 AM
link   
reply to post by tridentblue
 


Maybe the development of language coincides with the development of consciousness and memories.

Maybe the language is more powerful then we think.

The construct of the language may formulate differently for someone like hellen keller but maybe its still a language.

Isn't it weird how cultures that have more complicated languages tend to have more sophisticated technology?



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 01:36 AM
link   
reply to post by tridentblue
 


Here's the kicker though... symbols, sounds, feelings, or any given sensations, are all images / words to consciousness. It is the Son to the Father or Father to Son relationship.

Our mind has to go through the image of anothers' consciousness to become aware of their consciousness' concept -- their awareness.

Bible talk, but you get the idea / word / concept, right?

e.g. How do we know the squirrels awareness? By looking at the concepts / images he produces.
edit on 2/10/2014 by Bleeeeep because: added bit about squirrels and underlined are for emphasis




posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 01:45 AM
link   
reply to post by anonentity
 


Language is thinking in solid form.



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 01:50 AM
link   
reply to post by onequestion
 





Maybe the language is more powerful then we think.


It is. It is the root of all religion, philosophy, science and art. But language is and forever will be the ultimate mystery.



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 01:57 AM
link   

onequestion
reply to post by tridentblue
 


Maybe the development of language coincides with the development of consciousness and memories.

Maybe the language is more powerful then we think.

The construct of the language may formulate differently for someone like hellen keller but maybe its still a language.

Isn't it weird how cultures that have more complicated languages tend to have more sophisticated technology?


I don't think there's any maybe about it, when you talk about language being more powerful than we think. My heart and mind tells me you hit it right on there, OQ. There is a deep connection between what we are able to represent reasonably in a language, and the ideas we can have, or share with the world. This is profound stuff, because we also have the ability to create new languages, that means we can empower ourselves in new ways. I could go on and on right now about computer languages and how they shape the mind of the programmer, or mathematical issues, where a person has discovered than an existing math system cannot express something in its language, and in adding that missing part to the mathematical language, has blown open new doors of understanding. However you seem already connected with this knowledge.



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 02:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Bleeeeep
 


Bleep, I understand the point you are making that all sensations are essentially symbolic, in that we do not directly interact with the true referent (the world beyond the senses/mind) except through the senses/mind. I agree. I don't totally understand the Bible link, except remembering the line "In the beginning was the Word (logos) and the Word was God" Which to me points at a belief in the deep role played by language to early religious thinkers.



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 02:08 AM
link   
reply to post by tridentblue
 


Word / image / body is the creation made manifest by the will of consciousness.

It is important to not leave out will / spirit.


Okay back to your regularly schedule program.



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 02:14 AM
link   
reply to post by tridentblue
 


Sorry, people talk about what they know and I went to the bible to explain what exactly the base "referent" was in this conversation of consciousness and its senses.

I was trying to give you my awareness, or reproduce my concept, so to speak.


edit: John 14:6
edit on 2/10/2014 by Bleeeeep because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 02:29 AM
link   

Bleeeeep
I was trying to give you my awareness, or reproduce my concept, so to speak.


You cannot give someone your 'awareness' - you are passing on knowledge.
Awareness is prior to words/concepts.
Words/concepts appear in awareness.



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 02:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 



How can you be aware of that which does not exist? If you remove all things to be aware of, is anything left?

That is, the Trinity is one -- you can't separate them like you are trying to do.


edit on 2/10/2014 by Bleeeeep because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 02:38 AM
link   
Thinking is thinging.


Stop thinking and end your problems. Lao Tzu.



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 02:40 AM
link   

Bleeeeep
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 



How can you be aware of that which does not exist? If you remove all things to be aware of, is anything left?


Yes without there being anything to be aware of you are nothing.
You are nothing right now seeing something - that is what appears to be happening.
edit on 10-2-2014 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 02:44 AM
link   

Bleeeeep
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 



How can you be aware of that which does not exist? If you remove all things to be aware of, is anything left?

Are you aware in deep sleep.............. when there is no things appearing?
If not why set an alarm?
edit on 10-2-2014 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 02:48 AM
link   
reply to post by anonentity
 


Interesting question. The essence of cognition is abstract thought. Many musicians say they have inspired ideas in musical terms. Artists can think in visual terms. It might even be that language limits thinking to the concepts that are inherited from language. Many debates on forums like this are ossified because the meaning of words is not precisely defined. What is the difference between reality and truth? Is there a difference? To think in philosophical terms we need a rigorous definition of words. The most inspired scientific work seems to transcend language and operate on a purely abstract realm.



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join