Is it possible to think without language?

Sure, babies do it all the time.

I think so. I’ve read some books about “wild children” who were raised without language. They seemed capable of thought, even without being able to verbalize those thoughts. There are a couple of books you might like to read. “Genie” is the story of a girl kept in isolation until the age of 13. Also, try looking into stories of deaf people not exposed to sign language or taught to read—they can certainly think, even if they have never actually been exposed to language.

Babies and animals come to mind. They think. Maybe they just think in the abstract… like images, pictures, but with no words associated.

I wonder how Helen Keller experienced thought!

I’m guessing that the brain makes a language of it’s own if there is no formal language. You have to have a way of identifying stuff even if it’s just on a fire=pain level.

@aprilsimnel…I think it went a little like this. MNAH YAARRGLE BEEDFLOOP GROUINK

i really am very sorry…

@MissAusten Said everything I was going to say.

@Blondesjon – Bwahaha!

New answer: thinking without language might be considered perceiving. Or I could be completely wrong.

No, it is not possible to think without language. The concept of thinking without language is best expressed with the term “pure experience”. We can experience something without thinking about it. And we cannot think about it (ponder upon it) without the mechanism of language to do that upon.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies Surely one can plan his next action without the use of language. The experiences that someone endures throughout their life correlates the sensory input they experience to their thoughts and actions. This ability is inherent in the brain whether or not language exists.

I’m anticipating that you will say something to the effect of: “The brain must make use of a code.” This code is inherently created by the initial conditions of the brain, the input from environmental stimulus, and the rules that govern the brain’s development. None of this requires language, but simply experience of the environment. (interesting, another example of authorless code)

@Shuttle128 Sorry Shuttle, your explanation is talking in circles.

“The experiences… correlates the sensory input they experience…(into) thoughts & actions.”

So experience correlates experience? That might make sense to you, but it doesn’t make any sense to me. How can experience author anything? Experience is dependent upon the sensory input, not the other way around. If you cannot hear, then you will never “experience” the sounds of Mozart.

Knowledge may indeed come from sensory input alone… and believe it or not, that requires no thinking and no language whatsoever. That kind of knowledge is instinctual. .. no thought required.Sensory input will produce an experience the very first time a baby touches a hot oven. The baby has no way of quantifying that experience into language, but the baby does have an instinct to avoid pain.

First comes the phenomenon – hot oven
Then the sensory input – baby’s hand
Then the experience – pain

There is no thought taking place here at all. As such, there is no need for language to think with either. But actually thinking about that experience does require language.

“This hurts!”, “Why did I do that?”, “Stay away from the oven door stupid!”...

Thought IS the quantification (description) of experiential observation of phenomenon. It requires a language because nothing can be quantified without a code to quantify it upon. Nothing can be thought without a code to think that thought upon.

Code is a physical lens, allowing us to peer into the immaterial realm of thought. Without that lens, we cannot see thoughts. If we cannot see our thoughts, then we are not thinking. You are seeing my thoughts right now because of the code that I write to describe them. You could not have seen them otherwise… and neither could I.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies Sorry for the botched explanation, I tend to over complicate what I say. Sensory input to the neuronal pathways as well as input from other parts of the brain change the neuronal pathways. Experience changes how you react to future experience. You don’t have to quantify that an oven is hot and shouldn’t be touched in language to plan your actions accordingly. Abstract thinking, such as asking why something happens, probably does require language, however, thinking in general, like planning, does not require it.

@Shuttle128 What plans can be made without the mechanism of code to plan it upon?

Actions require thought, plan and code.

Reaction requires cause, senses and instinct.

Action and Reaction are different things. Thought and Instinct are different things.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies

What about Helen Keller?

http://www.rnib.org.uk/xpedio/groups/public/documents/publicwebsite/public_keller.hcsp

Or perhaps the “wild child” Genie?

http://kccesl.tripod.com/genie.html

@RedPowerLady Thanks for the links but I’m not sure what you are asking of me. From what I read on “wild child” it seems to confirm my statement. Before Genie could speak she could only experience. Experiential perception does not require thinking. Thinking requires language. That’s why she began to form two word sentences of “intention”. “WantMilk” “StopIt” “NoMore”. She now has a mechanism for thinking about things and her relationship to them. Before that she was practically a vegetable with muscles that reacted only on instinct. Reaction and Action are different things. Reaction requires Cause. Action requires Plans. Plans can only be made with a language.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies

Okay So even thought I don’t agree with your response I do see how you came to this idea. I could also ask what you believe about the ability to learn language. Do you not think that one would develop their own sense of language even if it was not something we could readily comprehend? And do you not think that when one experiences something over and over again they learn that is always the case. Even the most basic of animals learn this. So then learning is not thought? For example Genie may have seen a mouse go from one side of the room to the other over and over. She may have then learned that the mouse will invetibly go from point a to point b. That is a thought. If even for a brief second she realizes that the mouse will move towards point b (before it actually moves). You do not think she was capable of such?

And what about Hellen Keller?

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies A neural network has the ability to classify inherently, whether or not a human developed language is learned. Classification of stimulus is a code. Language does not have to exist for a neural network to associate things. When things are experienced a neural network stores this information in the differing strengths of connections between neurons. When similar inputs are fed into the network, similar outputs are generated. This means that when you recognize a chair your senses have stimulated the parts of your brain that respond to things that are chair-like. As more and more things are experienced the complexity of reactions to those experiences can increase because all experiences share the same network. It really is very fascinating that simply analyzing the computational aspect of the brain can account for so much of the way we think and perceive.