I agree with your conclusion, but I can easily so no to your above question.

Its all about how you want to label within your reference tagging system.

If I want to call any reference system a language then we agree and from my standpoint you are right.

If I want to nest into a hierarchy these different terms, and call any reference tagging system simply a tagging system, and only a tagging system which is expressed via a communication a language then no.

I however see how you are using the fundamental precepts of what a language is and find no problem with expanding it to encompass any reference tagging system.


What something is, is the ontology of it, its the positive objective characteristics which sum to total all of its impact on actuality.

Jeremy,

I had a feeling that you had understood what I meant earlier based upon alluding to a 'tagging system'.



James,

I am still as surprised today as I have been in past regarding your insistence upon devaluing language and all of the benefits that have come as a result of it. The very examples you give - the Feynman quotes - have no meaning whatsoever without it.

I want to respond in greater detail to your entire post, but for brevity I will keep this on track as much as possible.




This is an extremely weak argument James.



What is the problem, exactly?



No, I recognize the ambiguity in this idealistic style school of thought, and the inherent problems that it births concerning confidence in what it is that we can know(to the best of our ability) and therefore put to use.



Being able to mentally grasp the realtionship between the terms being used and that which those terms have been put in place to represent. What is new here?



Name a concept in which this is not the case. Again, so what? Humans have invented a multitude of different languages, some of which have been priceless to our understanding, all of which have added value to our thinking. What is the problem with that?



This is quite ironic actually. This is a very weak attempt to deny the value of our spoken/written language. The irony behind it all is in the sense that you are attempting to devalue logic, while using it.

Is that not a little ironic to you as well?



This is a ridiculous play on words James, be practical here for a minute. What is then?

Show me exactly how you intend to show this without using some form of language.

It is as close as we come, and you have no argument.

Well therein lies the problem Michael.

I'm not arguing. I'm just telling you how I see things. I have no need to defend my views. Hopefully you have no need to defend yours.

We just see things differently is all. I don't make the clear-cut distinction that you seem to make between animals and man. I realize that this is a popular idea, most people have been taught that humans are extra special. But personally I don't see it. We have the ability to abstract things to the absurd. And we do just that. Getting carried away with it is what we're really good at.

Here's a little story for you.

I recently built an 12 foot arbor to hang bird feeders on. And I went about hanging all sorts of goodies for the birds. It worked grand and I've been attracting all sorts of birds. But then one morning I got up only to find all my bird feeders damaged, torn apart, and some of them were missing altogether. It was so bad, at first I thought I had been struck by vandals. But then, I quickly realized it must be the work of a racoon.

Well, I started bringing in the bird feeders in at night. But the racoon had already learned that this arbor represents food. Well, he came back and tore up all my hanging plants trying to find seeds to eat and hummingbird nectar to drink.

So then I had to bring in all the plants at night too. That was really too much. So I decided to electrify the arbor. I have an electric fence charger, so today I ran some hot wires all over the arbor.

I've been checking it tonight and so far he hasn't touched it. Or if he did he got zapped. Which is probably the most likely scenario by now.

But here's the point. That racoon will quickly learn not to go anywhere near that arbor. Therefore, that racoon is not running on instinct alone. It can remember a nasty situation and THINK to itself, "Hey! I'm not going anywhere near that arbor anymore! I don't LIKE that! It's STINGS!"

Well, clearly the racoon isn't thinking in terms of language. But this is what animals do. They make "connections" between events that were undesirable and they THINK about it in terms of "I'm not going over there anymore because it's undesirable!". That goes beyond instinct. If they were driven by instinct alone they'd just keep comeing back and getting zapped again and again.

Of course, they don't label things with symbols and all that like we do. But that's my whole point. They don't need to because that's not important for conscious thought.

The racoon can remember to stay away from something without having any need to 'tag' it with a label. It simply remembers that certain places aren't cool to visit.

So what do we do? We put all sorts of labels on these things and give long drawn-out explanations of why we didn't like what happened to us, and what it felt like to get shocked, and blah, blah, blah,... but in the end we're not really doing anything different from the raccoon. All we're doing is wasting a bunch of time labeling every little nuance of the experience.

And of course this allows us to tell other humans not to go near that arbor. I think the real difference for the racoon is that each racoon that comes around is going to have to learn the hard way because racoons don't sit around and gossip about the places they've been.

That's that only real difference between humans and racoons.

Humans communicate with each other about these kinds of things, racoons don't. But they both THINK about it in their own way.

The 'understanding' is the same in both cases.

Again, this is not intended as an argument. I'm not arguing with you. I'm just telling you how I think.

Your millage may vary.

I believe that it's possible to understand things without language. Language simply allows for complex gossip.

I don't recall even remotely suggesting that language has no value. In fact, I've already agreed earlier that technology and science would not be possible without a structure of language. However, the major reason for this is because it's simply not possible for a single person to consider all this information and keep track of it without recording it and writing it down.

Language enables us to stand on the shoulders of those who came before us. But that boils down to "communication" really.

Also, language is not required for "logic", again, language merely allows use to build very complex systems of logic because it enables us to record the information and teach it to others.

Where would any of us be if it weren't for the written word and for education? But that all stems from an ability to communicate and to record information that we can look up. Or to build instruments that we can "Read" and gain even more information.

I never once denounced the power of language. All I said it that it's not the basis of thought. It's more like a way to combine the thinking of a LOT of different minds.

Again this is a big thing that seperates us from the animals. We can tell each other things that the animals can't pass on to their neigbors and children.

Language allows us to "teach".

No, I never meant to belittle language. I'm just staying that it's not a foundational principle of understanding. Instead, it's just a means by which we can understand a whole LOT of information and manage it.

Also, language is NOT logic. Even though we have also created symbolic logical languages like mathematics, etc.

The racoon is using logic without language. The racoon is thinking, "IF I go over by that arbor THEN I'm going to get hurt!"

That's an "IF/THEN" statement. Yet, the racoon isn't thinking that way. The racoon is thinking logically without the formal IF/THEN statement.

In fact, we as humans often think logically without doing it using a formal language of logic either.

I'm not belittling language. I'm just recognizing that it's not the basis of thought. It's simply a means by which thought can be organized. But that's POWERFUL!

Again, not meant to be argumentative with your views.

I'm just sharing how I think about these things. I guess I see language in a totally different way than you do. But that's ok, because language itself is a very abstract idea and therefore it should be open to various understandings of what it means.

We really most likely agree more than either of us have been willing to accept James...

I wanted to take this approach in the last response as well.

All I am saying is that the racoon is thinking in it's own language, whatever that may be.

I do not deny that animals think, just that not all do.

James,

This is a little off topic, but that thing that I do not believe in that some call intuition tells me that it is necessary... I want to say that knowing of you and reading your perspective on many different subjects in addition to the witnessing of art that comes from within you has made me a better man.

Di,

I believe that you are understanding what I am intending. I wanted to write that earlier and forgot...

In case you are strolling through any time soon.

That is so very true what difference does it make anyway when all said and done we are still all just as one

Di stated...



Our common language has done this, I believe. The symbols were put into practice to represent our rudimentary thought language that existed without it. Even if it were not learned by another(shared), the writing alone further embedded those into a foundation which had consistency and could be revisited. As James has mentioned, there are advances in our knowledge base that would have been impossible without it.



I am not sure that I understand what you are meaning.



If by complex abstract thinking you mean thought processes that can only be had through actual physical examination of a thing, I believe that you would be correct. Models are meant to substitute this, however a model is not the real thing in this case.



Of course... however it places focus on our mental capability for organization without written forms of language.

I understand what you mean, but how complex can an idea become or be understood without a written form? For the above to be true would mean that the framework could be consistently organized and remembered without being written. Unless it is a uniquely written one which was not previously put to 'paper'. In that case, that is why they were penned to begin with, yes? The written symbols of language are meant to represent the language of the mind.

Wnen one says that they know what they want to say, but cannot find the words, does that not mean that they understand something in their own mind's language, but cannot or have not found an appropiate translation into the common language for communication?

Or does it mean that they simply do not yet know the words which are required to accurately convey that information and it's meaning?

Perhaps something else?

While the greatest of minds have often been far ahead of their contemporaries, this was not because of the inability to express thier thoughts in some way. It was because the level of understanding regarding those expressions was so far beyond the others' at the time that it took years for the rest of the world to catch up to them... always through a form of language which represented that person's previous understanding.

To this day, Einstein is not completely understood. He himself had not gotten to that point through language.

I believe our thoughts are too complex to be limited by words or language.

We have thoughts that are outside the language barrier.

I have had thoughts that were not conveyed properly because of language barriers

Hi dragoness...



If thoughts are used to expand the shared language in an appropriately corresponding way, then it is the language which conforms to thought, not the other way around. I believe that is the beauty of language.



Good to see you!

Same here

My first thought when reading this title was of course the telepathic type of communication but as I read through some of the posts I saw the language to thought connection going on.

I agree with you on this.

Although I believe language to be limiting to our thoughts. We are given set perimeters of description by language.

I have difficulty describing how feel, for instance, sometimes because it is not just, for example, content or happy but something else.

I guess I then have the language option of "I don't know" to use but I feel I do "know" just don't know how to describe it.

Maybe I need to expand my vocabulary some huh??? LOL

There are, of course, terms which prohibit critical thinking skills and development. There is actually work being done through educational systems that is 'teaching' the teachers how to implement certain strategically placed questions and terms which expand the students' thought. The style of thinking that one has largely depends upon the language being used. Certain questions, if posed in certain ways, can begin to make connections in one's mind which were not there before.

In this way, I believe that we are just learning exactly how important our shared language actually is to our thinking processes and the physical development of our minds.

Dragoness,

I think we can all relate to that!

What can we make of the fact that spoken language directly affects not only what one thinks about but how?

I've been away for a few days, and am trying to wrap my head around the entirety of this thread, and am having a lot of difficulty. I'm resisting the temptation to pick out individual statements to agree with or argue about...

On the whole, I agree with much/most of what Abra has to say here. On the whole, I cannot say that I even really understand your main point(s), Creative.

Creative, would you be so kind as to attempt a short summary of your thesis in this thread?

And here's a challenge, which may be unrealistic, but if you succeeded I think would help me to understand your real meaning - can you present a summary without using the words 'language' nor 'thinking'/'thought', instead delving into the real meanings behinds those words (for you) even as you construct your summary?

Massage...

Short on time, but I will try to satisfy the request soon. I recognize a few inconsistencies in the manner by which I am attempting to express this notion, incidentally, the ramifications of which have yet to heve been discussed.






Habits of Mind...




" When the mind is thinking it is talking to itself."

Plato




"Of all forms of mental activity, the most difficult to induce even in the minds of the young, who may be presumend not to have lost their flexibility, is the art of handing the same bunch of data as before, but placing them in a new system of relations with one another by giving them a different framework, all of which virtually means putting on a different kind of thinking cap for the moment. It is easy to teach anybody a new fact... but it needs light from heaven above to enable a teacher to break the old framework in which the student is accustomed to seeing."

Arthur Koestler




" A man who has committed a mistake and doesn't correct it is committing another one."

Confucius

I want to say that language does not usually represent the totality of an experience, but a gifted linguist can indeed impart the emotional content of that experience into another through the use of acute terminology which invokes such feeling.




Massage...

Still working on your request, my friend. I am sorry for the delay, and I want you to understand that I completely appreciate the manner in which your question was raised.