Language…

[JonM]

How we think and perceive is based off language for the most part, right? We see a chair, we perceive it as a chair, and we think things out using words in our head. How are mind works revolves around language to a large extent, right?

 

So our thought processes in our cerebral cortex have evolved within the limits of language. I would imagine the way we perceive the world and how we think, and the content of those thoughts, would be radically different if there was some hypothetical substitute for language, like say electronic data transmitted between humans, or telepathy. No?

[ecoli]

why not. As in 1984, if you control the language of the people, you can control the ability of the people to express themselves and thus control the people themselves. It works both ways.

[Bio-Hazard]

Check out the sapir-whorf hypothesis.

 

Culture and language come hand to hand to make our world.

 

I think for those who can see, images would be their language.

 

However, for those who are blind.. telepathy would be an interesting thing.. their communication with visual things wouldn't be so possible and symbols wouldn't be readily usable to an extent, perhaps if they built a cognitive map of something such as brail they could bust out information.. but it would still be an image.. verbal language would probably dominate either way, for a picture says a 1000 words.

 

Well.. natural born telepathics.. but the idea behind telepathy is that you can read minds.. so those who can see mingling with the blind would provide imagery for them.. Images and a mix of words would combine.

 

Since we can not simply present images in our languages, description in discussion is valued.

[BobbyJoeCool]

How we think and perceive is based off language for the most part' date=' right? We see a chair, we perceive it as a chair, and we think things out using words in our head. How are mind works revolves around language to a large extent, right?

 

So our thought processes in our cerebral cortex have evolved within the limits of language. I would imagine the way we perceive the world and how we think, and the content of those thoughts, would be radically different if there was some hypothetical substitute for language, like say electronic data transmitted between humans, or telepathy. No?[/quote']

 

More accuratly, we see a chair and we think of a chair... if we called it a zhjas instead of a chair, you still picture it the same, right? When you see a word (nouns especially), your mind pictures it... so you see the word table, in your mind, you have associated that word with the mental image of an actual table. With adjectives and verbs, you actually see something that is (place adjective) or is doing (place verb) in your mind... you can call it whatever you want, it's just that your mind has associated that word with whatever it is that it actually is..

 

You can see it with little kids a lot. You can show a little kid a cat, and tell the kid that it's a cat... once the kid gets it into it's mind that this 4-legged furry animal is a cat, when (s)he might see a dog (also a 4-legged furry animal) (s)he will probably say "look mommy, at cat!" Because that kid has associated the word cat with 4-legged furry animals.

 

On a simpler level, dogs have no language, but yet they can percieve many things... smell, taste, sights, sounds... "Pavlov's Dog" is a good example of how dogs can perceive and even associate things with one another. Humans are the same way, just more intellegent to the point where we can communicate with eachother. We make up a word for "Dog" and "Salivate" and "Chair" and "Table" and we associate the word with the object so much that your mind actually gets to the point where it can look at a chair and say "chair" instead of just knowing that you can sit in it...

 

Hope this is somewhat helpful...

[Conceptual]

It appears that memory is built in layers. If one goes hiking in the woods within a new state, there are many trees that may be different than ones one might be used to seeing. Once someone adds a name to this basic tree association, it is now a tree that is also called the swamp oak. The swamp oak is now the outer layer.

 

Maybe there are collective human base layers of memory association. Culture tops it off for a unique expression. Carnivores and Vegatarian animals seem to know which base layer to head for. The specific labelling of the sublayer might be taught.

[BobbyJoeCool]

obviously there are layers, but it's more of getting more descriptive.

 

I could see a animal (let's say a bald eagle) moving as call it alive.

 

Furthermore, I could say, "it's flying, so it's a bird."

 

Furthermore, I could say, "It has a white head and a brown body so it's a bald eagle."

 

A swamp oak tree is still a tree... it's just that you describe it a little differently because it's a specific kind of tree. It's like saying tabby cat, or spotted cat. Orange cat, or black cat.. all of them are still cats, it's just you desribe them differently.

[j_p]

How we think and perceive is based off language for the most part' date=' right? We see a chair, we perceive it as a chair, and we think things out using words in our head. How are mind works revolves around language to a large extent, right?

 

So our thought processes in our cerebral cortex have evolved within the limits of language. I would imagine the way we perceive the world and how we think, and the content of those thoughts, would be radically different if there was some hypothetical substitute for language, like say electronic data transmitted between humans, or telepathy. No?[/quote']

 

Maybe not; language is definitely our most recognized means of thought and communication, but I do not think it is our only one.

 

I frequently dream without language; in fact, trying to impose language on the dream [as I do when I am in a very light sleep] will wake me. There is obviously something going on in my brain; is there a reason to declare it is not thought?