Is language needed for thinking?

When I take one of my motorcycles out for a spin on the streets or off-road, it takes a lot of concentration. You have to pay attention, make decisions, take action, react fast, etc. but most of the time it doesn't require me to think to myself or talk to myself with any language or dialog, but I know I'm thinking. If I wasted time talking to myself internally it could mean life or death.

When I play the drums or guitar, I don't need to have any internal dialog or talking to myself to play certain songs, or even create new songs. It just happens naturally. I am thinking, but not thinking with words. I think its the same with playing any type of sport too.

A lot of the above is muscle memory, but there is thinking involved. Most of the time there is no time for words or language, just think and act.

So the answer to your question is no.

anonentity
A while ago I was listening to an interview by the "Hulk" who was born deaf. He said he functioned ok even though when young he couldn't speak. If he couldn't speak, then are we to assume that he could internalise without language? Is there some kind of internal fall back language.
Being a self aware entity it seems internalising comes with the territory, and is necessary for solving problems. So is language required for thinking, or just needed to transfer said thoughts to another person.?

Thought is required for language.

Helen Keller has some profound revelations on the subject. It horrifies me that people like her could have existed in history and were either euthanized or institutionalized because of our lack of ability to understand them

Itisnowagain

The principle is 'Advaita Vedanta' - it is not new age.

Are you indian?

For some reason I don't think so. You sound to be anglo-saxon, perhaps from England?

In any case, when eastern beliefs and philosophies (such as the Vedic schools ) are taken and adopted into western thought and language, they fall into the catagory of "New Age".

Once these teachings were very specific to a culture and peoples, and as the idea of New Age spirituality happened, they were stripped and taken apart, to be spread to other cultures. They mutate a bit in the translation and in practice, due to the differing mentality, cultures and living styles and environment.

Bluesma

Itisnowagain

The principle is 'Advaita Vedanta' - it is not new age.

Are you indian?

For some reason I don't think so. You sound to be anglo-saxon, perhaps from England?

I am non dual awareness - not any thing.

Labels!!
Words are just labels. Where do these labels originate?

The tao that can be told
is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named
is not the eternal Name.

The unnamable is the eternally real.
Naming is the origin
of all particular things.

Free from desire, you realize the mystery.
Caught in desire, you see only the manifestations.

Yet mystery and manifestations
arise from the same source.
This source is called darkness.

Darkness within darkness.
The gateway to all understanding.

acc6.its.brooklyn.cuny.edu...

Itisnowagain

Bluesma

Itisnowagain

The principle is 'Advaita Vedanta' - it is not new age.

Are you indian?

For some reason I don't think so. You sound to be anglo-saxon, perhaps from England?

I am non dual awareness.

Your physical form, however, has a specific DNA sequence all it's own, it has it's own specific memories and associations held in the muscle and tissue, automatic reflexes to various stimuli developed not only through your personal life experiences but those of your ancestors. These all make your body unique and different from others.

Besides that, the language you are using right now, to write and to speak, carries a culture within it, that is specific to some people and not to others. It carries underlying values and morals and beliefs; it carries shared experience with other of similar background. It hits specific notes within their emotional centers, and different ones in others from different cultures.

So .....
I am not sure what your non-dual consciousness (that still proclaims I AM ..???) has to do with this, but it surely does not eliminate those elements which make you different from another. Is a cat a dog? Is a brit an indian? Indeed....

Bluesma
Is a cat a dog? Is a brit an indian? Indeed....

Wrong thread!

Bluesma

I am not sure what your non-dual consciousness

It would be foolish to continue when you have already seen 'consciousness' when the word used was 'awareness'.
It is so easy to misread and misinterpret.
Not sure if you saw the edit - "I am non dual awareness - not any thing."

Preconceived ideas blind one from the actual.
The truth is hidden in plain sight.

Words and ideas build pictures of what is not happening - they tell stories and stories are never true.

anonentity
A while ago I was listening to an interview by the "Hulk" who was born deaf. He said he functioned ok even though when young he couldn't speak. If he couldn't speak, then are we to assume that he could internalise without language? Is there some kind of internal fall back language.
Being a self aware entity it seems internalising comes with the territory, and is necessary for solving problems. So is language required for thinking, or just needed to transfer said thoughts to another person.?

Thinking is a language that only the thinker can understand,

We voice our thinking in a language that to understand each others thoughts, however many times our thoughts are misinterpreted by either our way of expressing those thoughts or simply a misinterpretation on the receivers behalf due to the mind state they are in at the time of receiving anothers thoughts and opinions.

reply to post by Bluesma

Is a cat a dog? Is a brit an indian?

Yes to both questions,

Language and thinking is the topic.

To break down the 4 you ask about to give just simple meaning, all are the same as they all represent a life.

Its not the wrong thread itisnowagain, actually quite a fitting question when I came across it.

I like to simplify language by attempting to break down the words used to express thoughts to their most basic concepts, like the labels we use to label us, humans, there is 1 label that covers all of us, a label to distinguish the sexes, then we have a label to describe our geographical birth place or place of residence, one for our sexual preference and many many more.

When I do so, even though it is only my interpretation and belief and I could be wrong, but when I break down language to very basic concepts like life would represent all the labels I mentioned above I come to realize how much of simulation world we are living in programing each other not through our understandings but mainly through our misunderstandings.

Its is fear and war that changes the large portions of this reality.

If fear is better understood then one could recognize it guiding their thoughts when they do not understand anothers.

InhaleExhale
reply to post by Bluesma

 

Is a cat a dog? Is a brit an indian?

Yes to both questions,

Language and thinking is the topic.

To break down the 4 you ask about to give just simple meaning, all are the same as they all represent a life.

I say no, they are not the same, in terms of experience. The experience of a cat is different than that of a dog.
Close your eyes and feel them- they do not feel the same.
Close your eyes, touch nothing, listen to their cries- they do not sound the same.
Smell them, they do not smell the same.
Open your eyes, they do not look the same, they do not act the same way.

You don't have to know one is called cat and the other is called dog.

Take away the words. Just experience their physical presence . They are not the same.

Call the world of physicality and matter "simple" if you see it that way (I don't personally, it seems rather complex to me), but it is varied in experience, and those experiences (and memories of them, and projections of them as potentials in future) can all be manipulated in consciousness with no words at all.

Using the word "life" is an abstraction of a whole huge variation of experiences which make up life and living.
My retarded sister who could not use words thought actively, and had structures in mind made up of experience.
Not in terms of sentences, but more like associations of groups- correlations made between experiences.

...but yes, the question of whether Advaita Vedanta is "New Age" was going off subject and perhaps I shouldn't have contributed to that arm of the discussion. I shall not go further along that then.

reply to post by InhaleExhale


There is just oneness.
If oneness is catting - it is not dogging.
It is life expressing itself as what is but catting is not dogging.

Itisnowagain

Not sure if you saw the edit - "I am non dual awareness - not any thing."

Preconceived ideas blind one from the actual.
The truth is hidden in plain sight.

Words and ideas build pictures of what is not happening - they tell stories and stories are never true.

I am rather used to the claim of "I am not my body". I can give a half nod and comprehend what you mean... but in the end, the body you are disregarding and disowning, is what is allowing you to speak or write these words right now.
I can't help but think it is abusive somehow to treat it with such disdain and lack of acknowledgement.
But whatever, moral judgements are subjective. Maybe your body finds pleasure in such disembodied guidance. I don't know.

Our words may not be reality itself, but I think it is fair to at least try to use them to acknowledge reality, especially since in the sphere of which there is no duality (there is no I or you, there is no things...) then there is likewise, no words.
Words belong to the world of duality, in which there is a you and others and they are all different beings with different experiences, both past, present and future. So why not use them to address that particular reality?

Bluesma
Our words may not be reality itself, but I think it is fair to at least try to use them to acknowledge reality, especially since in the sphere of which there is no duality (there is no I or you, there is no things...) then there is likewise, no words.
Words belong to the world of duality, in which there is a you and others and they are all different beings with different experiences, both past, present and future. So why not use them to address that particular reality?

Reality - that which is real - does not need words to be acknowledged.
Words do appear to divide that which is whole but they never really do.
There is no past or future now is there?

Past and future are words appearing now - the only 'time' there is.

Itisnowagain

Reality - that which is real - does not need words to be acknowledged.

Reality in a larger sense, no. But your particular form, your physical body (a part of that reality) has needs, it most certainly does.
My physical form doesn't feel well with a mind that repudiates and denies it. It is being a loyal and obediant vehicle, giving of it's energy and mass so that awareness can experience living, and awareness just - waves it off as inconsequential????

Whatever, like I said, perhaps your physical body has different needs- it is different, with a different past, different memories inscribed in it's muscles, tissues, and glands....

There is no past or future now is there?

In terms of experience, yes there is.
There is memories of experiences that echo forward and influence the present. They carry complex associations with other sensual memories, and stimulate different chemicals and reflexes in my body.

These structures of sensual experience and affect are also what allows me to perceive potential futures, and the events which can increase their potential of becoming present.

I don't need words for any of that. Yet, I need words in order to transfer those thought-bundles to another individual and gain their aid or contribution in bringing the desired potential futures into present.

Language is necessary for individuals to create a shared collective reality.

reply to post by Bluesma


You have completely missed my point,

not to worry, the way I see things and think is my way and not yours.

I say no, they are not the same, in terms of experience. The experience of a cat is different than that of a dog. Close your eyes and feel them- they do not feel the same. Close your eyes, touch nothing, listen to their cries- they do not sound the same. Smell them, they do not smell the same. Open your eyes, they do not look the same, they do not act the same way. You don't have to know one is called cat and the other is called dog. Take away the words. Just experience their physical presence . They are not the same.

Yes they are in terms of experience, they are both living experiencing life.

what you seem to be speaking of is your own experience interacting with these animals not simply the experience these animals experience on the most basic level and that is life, so in terms of what I was trying point yes they are both the same.


My point was about breaking down the labels to their most basic form or concept.

Call the world of physicality and matter "simple" if you see it that way (I don't personally, it seems rather complex to me),

It is rather complex, extremely actually, that is why you can break down the complexity to find simple meaning to everything.

Or be in delusional state believing you can like me, its peaceful at times and rather irritating at others when you realize how stupid things are or how stupid your interpretation of things are you're trying to simplify to understand.

Using the word "life" is an abstraction of a whole huge variation of experiences which make up life and living. My retarded sister who could not use words thought actively, and had structures in mind made up of experience. Not in terms of sentences, but more like associations of groups- correlations made between experiences.

If the medical diagnosis given to your sister was based solely on her not being able use words but thought actively and had structures in mind made up of experience. Not in terms of sentences, but more like associations of groups- correlations made between experiences, I would say in my unprofessional and rather ignorant opinion that she is more enlightened in terms of thinking than a what society would classify as normal and of a healthy thought processes.

No,

language is not needed for thinking.

(In fact, sometimes I think it might actually limit us)

If I were to think "you're a douche" and tell you that, my thought is already formed before I verbally communicate it to you. The language is just an abstraction of thoughts.

By the way, language is obviously not the only way of communicating or "thinking". You can think in "art" or "symbols", for example.

An artist, for example, can convey a message in ways where language might be extremely limited. Go in a museum, look at sculptures, paintings etc....get the idea there IS "language" where "language" is actually not even needed to convey opinions, emotions etc.

reply to post by anonentity


Babies and animals can think in sounds and pictures.
So, the answer is no, language is not needed in order to 'think'.

"Once you have the experience, you can drop the words." - I forget where this quote comes from, I did a quick search but came up empty.

Every word we use has behind it an 'essence' or a 'meaning'. If we have only knowledge of something, language is necessary in order to make any sense of it. If we have an understanding of a phenomenon, no words are necessary for 'thinking'. Consider the difference between 'knowing' and 'understanding' something.

If I understand something, I won't need to think about it in words - I will be able to recreate the experience in my mind without them. Also, if I wish to convey this understanding to another, I will find it impossible to do so. Understanding cannot be communicated via words. Knowledge can, it is up to the receiver of this knowledge to understand it.

"We must be as little children" - Yes, I do know who that quote is attributed to but, well, so do you probably...try and understand it.

Awesome question!

InhaleExhale

Yes they are in terms of experience, they are both living experiencing life.

They are both experiencing living and life in different ways.
Throw a cat in a lake, or a dog, and you can see some evidence that thing we call "lake", or "body of water" is experienced very differently by these two life forms!

My point was about breaking down the labels to their most basic form or concept.

I got that. That is called "abstraction" as I said.

Abstraction is a process by which concepts are derived from the usage and classification of literal ("real" or "concrete") concepts, first principles, or other methods.

Abstractions may be formed by reducing the information content of a concept or an observable phenomenon, typically to retain only information which is relevant for a particular purpose. For example, abstracting a leather soccer ball to the more general idea of a ball retains only the information on general ball attributes and behavior, eliminating the other characteristics of that particular ball

Thinking in abstractions is considered to be one of the key traits in modern human behaviour, which is believed to have developed between 50,000 and 100,000 years ago. Its development is likely to have been closely connected with the development of human language, which (whether spoken or written) appears to both involve and facilitate abstract thinking.


In philosophical terminology, abstraction is the thought process wherein ideas are distanced from objects.

Abstraction uses a strategy of simplification, wherein formerly concrete details are left ambiguous, vague, or undefined; thus effective communication about things in the abstract requires an intuitive or common experience between the communicator and the communication recipient. This is true for all verbal/abstract communication.

en.wikipedia.org...

This is worth considering, in this topic (and it ties in the subject of "duality" and separation- of individual awareness and consciousness, and even what happens to an idea in one culture and language, when it is translated into another).

To communicate with someone who shares much the same past and experiences as self, you can easily communicate via abstractions. If you share the same education (say, both got degrees in the same study...) . Like on another thread, I refered to the idea of women as vessels, and the other person did not know what i refered to and wondered why I wasn't more specific.
If I had been talking to someone with more knowledge of philosophy they get right away what I meant.

Where I live, people will refer to a "bête" being in the road that morning. Everyone around nods and understands. The word literally means "beast" in english- animal. THEY know he means a wild boar- because that is the kind of animal that can be a problem if it runs out in the road, in the context of the story told. I am not from here originally. I have had cats, dogs, toads, coyotes, snakes and deer run out in front of my car.
He'd have to make a distinction between all those forms for me to grasp, or "get" the experience he is trying to communicate to me.


If you are speaking to a friend with whom you often play basketball, and you say, "Hey, grab a ball, let's play a bit" you can abstract and he will still understand what kind of ball. Say it to someone else you've never discussed or played basketball with, they will stand there like a dumbass wondering what you are refering to.

If the medical diagnosis given to your sister was based solely on her not being able use words but thought actively and had structures in mind made up of experience. Not in terms of sentences, but more like associations of groups- correlations made between experiences, I would say in my unprofessional and rather ignorant opinion that she is more enlightened in terms of thinking than a what society would classify as normal and of a healthy thought processes.

I don't know what to make of that. The diagnosis was made when she was six months old- ability to speak was not a factor. Accident during birth damaged parts of her brain and caused neurological damage- this effected her ability to use her muscles and body. She might be enlightened in some way, but she could not walk until she was three, she had to wear diapers until five, and on and on... she has many painful disabilities. But her way of thinking seems to be exactly the same as very small children and of animals. So ... enlightenment, I don't know. If so, children and animals would be more enlightened than normal adults.