devrimci_kürt Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 What is the relationship between language, thought, and science ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
npts2020 Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 IMO; Thought does not require language or science, language requires thought but not science, and science requires both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadow Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 I concur...and btw, nice sig It's nice to know our former president is at least a little known outside the Czech Republic... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
npts2020 Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 Mr. Havel is a great man we can all aspire to be like. Unfortunately, I hear he is ailing at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphus Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 What is the relationship between language, thought, and science ? I think a non-flippant answer to that question would take up several large books at least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 IMO; Thought does not require language Initially I was going to disagree, but then I thought, where did language come from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 If I may, thought DOES require language, just not in the traditional sense (like English or Chinese). It's a language of neural activity and global patterns... a "chemoelectric calculus" in our brain and nervous system. It is a language, just defined more loosely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devrimci_kürt Posted January 16, 2009 Author Share Posted January 16, 2009 is there a language of thought? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bascule Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 Thought does not require language I completely disagree... language is the basis of conscious thought. is there a language of thought? I would contend that every neocortical column communicates to the others using an independent language of sorts, but the languages at particular levels of our neocortical hierarchy the languages end up looking similar. If I may, thought DOES require language, just not in the traditional sense (like English or Chinese). I would disagree. I'm a believer in Dennett's concept of a "Joyceian Machine", a way for the brain to abstractly rerepresent concepts to itself in a way that multiple different parts of our brain can operate on simultaneously. Natural language is the basis of the "Joyceian Machine's" operation. Regarding the OP, the relationship between thought, language, and science is that science can use the (mostly) unambiguous language of mathematics to express ideas in a way with one definitive interpretation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
npts2020 Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 I completely disagree... language is the basis of conscious thought. I am not an expert on this subject but it seems to me that language is just the expression of conscious thought. I would submit to you that it is possible to have thoughts for which there is no language and impossible to have language with no thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 I completely disagree... language is the basis of conscious thought. But language certainly did not appear on its own. Didn't the development of language require thought? At worst, I think that they co-developed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bascule Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 But language certainly did not appear on its own. Didn't the development of language require thought? At worst, I think that they co-developed. Yes, Dennett argues that language developed socially and the evolutionary advantages it conferred ensured a period of rapid genetic fixing (through the Baldwin effect) This was going on around the same time our cerebral cortices were ballooning in size Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 I would disagree. I'm a believer in Dennett's concept of a "Joyceian Machine", a way for the brain to abstractly rerepresent concepts to itself in a way that multiple different parts of our brain can operate on simultaneously. Natural language is the basis of the "Joyceian Machine's" operation. Cool stuff about Dennett's work. I'll need to look more into that, but I think you may have missed my primary point about language. I'm trying to suggest that there was a language of bioelectricity long before there was a language of sharing and communicating with others. Basically, even simple organisms have this language to which I refer, whereby a stimulus results in a response... like "touch skin" then "run like hell." I see that space between stimulus and response as a chemoelectric language interpretted internally. I'm referring to the neural cascade more than our conscious interpretation or verbalizations... I'm suggesting that there is a "language" to the firing pattern of the nerves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baby Astronaut Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 I dunno. Formulated thoughts based on established speech requires language, but inherent/natural thought wouldn't. The latter is only understood by its thinker, however any eavesdropper would probably interpret it as gibberish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now