If we did not have a language, what would we think?

[Duke John]

If humans do not have a language composed of words, what would we think? Would we think in grunts? Or would we not think at all as we cannot compose a thought?

Best example, and not unrealistic at all, is the person who is deaf from birth. He could never form thoughts in his head as he does not know that it requires sound and how it would sound like. Could he learn how to read as reading usually means reading the words "aloud" in your mind? What is going on in the head of this person? Just images and feelings? Or is some kind of language "printed" into our genes allowing him to think, albeit in a different way? And for a normal child that language would be replaced by the spoken languages as we know them.

And on the subject of childs. Is it so that we do not remember our earliest years because we did not have a language yet? That it requires a language to truely remember? A dog doesn't have a language and as a result he cannot remember when and how he was unnessarily hit by a man, but that he does connect pain and suffering caused by that man, making him afraid or aggressive towards to that man; feelings and images.

And related. Certain animals are capable of producing a large of sounds. There is no pattern in the barks of a dog. But there is in the songs of a whale. Could it be possible that the song could also be sung in the mind of a whale, just like we are able to speak in our mind? If not, what do we have that allows us do that? Or is it simply because whale songs are not true languages? But if that is not the case what makes it remember the exact same sequence of sounds for a long period?

Please, do not make this a thread about religion or the true difference between animals and humans. The purpose of this thread is to discuss the importance of language when it comes to thought.

[Somebody Else]

We think in images as well, surely? After all, our minds are not merely books to be read; I mean - I tend to see my past as more of a film, maybe the narrative might not be present were I to lack a language, but the pictures, sounds, smells... would still be there.

Basically, I'm saying that thoughts are a reflection of the world we sense, and we have more to our senses and thoughts than mere language. Or something.

[Husar]

Interesting question, just want to throw in that deaf people can learn to speak, I don´t know how, but they can. Kekvitirae might know more about this.

[Duke John]

We think in images as well, surely?

Images and feelings too, yes. There was a research I heard about where it was proven that people could traumatic experiences if they got rid of the feelings connected with the experience.

It makes sense as the survival of a person/animal depends on rembering what causes pain (bad) and what is nice (good). If there is no feeling associated with a past experience then it doesn't affect the chance of survial, as a result it can be forgotten.

I tend to see my past as more of a film, maybe the narrative might not be present were I to lack a language, but the pictures, sounds, smells... would still be there.

Our dog sometimes growled and moved his legs a bit when sleeping, just like I sometimes do when having a nightmare. That convinces me that animals can dream, why else would the dog do that? Dreams require having images in your mind. So animals can have images in their mind. Wouldn't that mean that animals could somehow "think" with images and feelings?

There are "funny home videos" of dogs moving chair around to use it as a step to get on a table. To do that the dog would have needed to form those actions in their head. It is not instinctive behaviour. The same with apes using sticks to get honey out of holes. It requires thought, if only to see in their mind how the chair being closer to the table enable them to get on top of it.

And to complicate things even more. What does a person think who is both blind and deaf from birth? He cannot form images and cannot form words. The only thing left is feelings. Yet those persons are still able of doing complex handlings.

Having a spoken language would thus merely improve/upgrade the way of thinking, but it is not the only prerequisite for forming thoughts. Is that a plausible theory?

It seems that I am already coming to a conclusion with all this reasoning. Far too soon for my liking. So please let hear your own thoughts!

[Somebody Else]

I would postulate that words themselves are not part of our memories - unless the memory is specifically about the words (a poem say). Rather, words are there as a commentary to our memories - we have the memory, and the words are what we think of them as we 'replay' them in our mind's eye.

[Duke John]

Indeed! That idea hasn't occured to me yet. That proves that spoken language is only a tool for handling current events, be it by talking or thinking in words.

I have heard of a research that allows victims of a traumatic experience to forget it by disconnecting the feelings with the event. It was done by talking about it in multiple sessions and eventually it resulted in a talking about the experience as if the person was an objective bystander. The feelings were removed and I believe that even in some or one case(s) the victim could no longer remember the experience when asked about it later on.

Also, humans are storytellers. You remember things much better if you put them in the context of a story. I thought that to replay that story in your head to remember the things you would need words. But now with what you said, you don't need words to tell a story. You remember by images and those images are translated into words into your head.

You can conjure up an image of a table and immediately the "word" table comes in your mind. I suspect now this is not because spoken language is essential for remembering or thinking of a table, but only because the image of a table is connected/associated to the word "table". Just like certain memories are connected with a feeling.

The primary association is the one that comes up immediately. If I think of a table I see a table and think of the word table. When I think of beer, I see the yellow liquid, the white foam and "taste" the bubbles. A fraction later, the word "beer" comes up. A blind person cannot see, so when he thinks of a table he probably thinks first of a memory of how a table feels like. Or perhaps the entire table is felt in form, just like how you can remember how a single marble feels like.

So thoughts can be words, images, feelings, sensations (, etc.?) and any thought can have multiple or just one connection with your senses (sight, hearing, touch and emotion). Not having a spoken language does not mean one cannot think, it merely indicates that a thought has one less association, that of words.

[Fragony]

We would think exactly the same I guess, language is just catagorising words. We have a thousand different words for a chair but we all have the same object in mind. Same with emotions, if you hurt someone from china you get a different sound then when you hurt someone from russia, and yet another if you hurt someone from europe (try it yourselve!) If I see a table I don't think 'table', I just know it's one.

[Pannonian]

Gah!

[GoreBag]

So, by your logic, bilinguals remember more because they have 'more language'? We'd still be able to think, we'd just have trouble communicating our thoughts to one another. Take neanderthal for example.

[Somebody Else]

So, by your logic, bilinguals remember more because they have 'more language'? We'd still be able to think, we'd just have trouble communicating our thoughts to one another. Take neanderthal for example.

They wouldn't remember more, they'd have more ways to describe what they remember.

[GoreBag]

They wouldn't remember more, they'd have more ways to describe what they remember.

Realistically, yes, but that's not what would be suggested in post number 1.