Are thoughts necessary for language?

[Dee]

Based on the theory that language is determined by thought, I was wondering if it is possible for a person to have absolutely no thoughts (while retaining consciousness) and be able to speak.

Dee

 

[Ryan_m_b]

That depends on your definition of "thought". I find that I can categorise my thoughts into qualia and internal narrative. The former being raw ideas, emotions, images etc and the later being my brain's constant commentary on my thoughts and sensory experiences in English.

With regards to language many animals have language that doesn't consist of audible words (bees for instance) but they probably have to think to translate their intention into action. However the issue get's murkier when you consider organisms such as bacteria or the cells in your body. They communicate through chemical 'languages' and can have memory of previous interactions which can alter the outcome of future actions, but we would argue they do not 'think'. On a different note chatbots and other turingesque machines can respond with language we would recognise but the 'thinking' involved is far different to us (arguably to the point of it not even being thinking)

 

[disregardthat]

It depends on your definition of speech. Usually one considers speech as conveying conscious thought.

 

[Dee]

I understand the non-audiable form of language, eg sign language and writing. But since our forms of human language are not instinctive (as in the case of bees maybe) then surly the must be some sort of internal processing of the raw symbols (ie letters) into meaningful comprehension? For example, young children can be taught new words but they will not understand them until they have mastered certain intellectual skills during the process of cognitive growth.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I understand the non-audiable form of language, eg sign language and writing. But since our forms of human language are not instinctive (as in the case of bees maybe)

Langauge is instinctive to humans too, it's what language you speak that changes. However every human born (including blind and deaf children) use the same facial expressions to communicate emotions, same styles of laughter etc.

then surly the must be some sort of internal processing of the raw symbols (ie letters) into meaningful comprehension? For example, young children can be taught new words but they will not understand them until they have mastered certain intellectual skills during the process of cognitive growth.

Now the conversation has moved onto what "comprehension" is. The purpose of language as Jarle says is to convey thought to another. This allows you to achieve certain goals. Heres a thought experiment;

I moved to a country where I did not speak the local language. One day I meet a man who says "kuufta" to me. I don't understand so he points to a passing woman with a shopping bag and says "kuufta". At first I think kuufta means woman, I can try to indicate this but then he seems nonplussed so I conclude kuufta does not mean woman. Examining the situation again I try to mime a bag. He acts negatively and walks backwards and forwards repeating kuufta. Eventually I realize that kuufta means walk.

Here I have analysed a situation and tried to match certain behaviours to words but did I need to think to learn the language? In the same scenario replace me with a robot that is programmed to trial and error until a certain goal is reached. If it can match me in judging when I have arrived at the correct conclusion then is thought required for language?

Lastly think of this; whilst children may not have comprehension of the meaning of most words how would you tell if one never established comprehension? How would you tell if an adult had lived their whole lives not understanding anything that was going on around them. When somebody talks to them they respond in a manner that they know has worked before, I.e. I say to this person "Hello, nice to meet you" and they respond to those sounds and gestures by saying "nice to meet you too" and shaking my hand however they have no comprehension of what is going on, they are merely choosing an appropriate response from a list they have established.

I'd advise looking up John Searle's Chinese room thought experiment, zombies (not the flesh-eating kind) in philosophy of mind and turing machine.

 

[disregardthat]

Lastly think of this; whilst children may not have comprehension of the meaning of most words how would you tell if one never established comprehension? How would you tell if an adult had lived their whole lives not understanding anything that was going on around them. When somebody talks to them they respond in a manner that they know has worked before, I.e. I say to this person "Hello, nice to meet you" and they respond to those sounds and gestures by saying "nice to meet you too" and shaking my hand however they have no comprehension of what is going on, they are merely choosing an appropriate response from a list they have established.

This is actually very interesting, and it is my conviction that the sharp distinction between knowing what to say in certain situations and actually "understanding" what you are saying, is false. It is in my opinion only degrees of certainty of knowing what to say or do in given situations, and "comprehension" is simply being adequate at this.