And, of course, this brings us back to the same old problem as before: even if these critters held beliefs in supernatural beings, how on Earth could we possibly know without communicating with them linguistically?
That's the point of the thread. The idea is that we could observe behaviors that were the same as those from critters we know hold the beliefs.
Re: Which Came First - The Concept Or The Linguistic Expression of the Concept?
Which came first the concept or the Linguistic expression of the concept? The concept surely? How could it possibly be otherwise? Why could anyone invent the language to express put the water in the cup unless they already held the concept that they wanted to communicate to others?
You're straying from abstraction and religious beliefs.
Mentalese?
I read that link and am now more convinced of my position...
Self-awareness, problem solving abilities, the ability to associate symbols with real objects and use of tools all require some basic degree of abstract thought don’t they?
I don't think so.
Even if we accept this as a given - With a basic ability to think abstractly and some notion of cause and effect I fail to see why a basic belief in imagined entities as causal agents should be considered an impossibility? Regardless of verbal communication skills.
I'm not considering things to be impossibilities. And I don't know how "basic belief in imagined entities as causal agents" relates to anything that actually exists, e.g. believing in something I imagined.
A good question. This case study doesn’t answer it as such. But it certainly challenges the assumption that language is required for thought.
Not just for thought, for abstraction.
quote:And then he started-it was the most emotional moment with another human being, I think, in my life so that even now, after all these years, I’m choking up [pauses]-he started pointing to everything in the room, and this is amazing to me! I’ve thought about this for years. It’s not having language that separates us from other animals, it’s because we love it! All of a sudden, this twenty-seven-year-old man-who, of course, had seen a wall and a door and a window before-started pointing to everything. He pointed to the table. He wanted me to sign table. He wanted the symbol. He wanted the name for table. And he wanted the symbol, the sign, for window.
He finally "gets it" and the first thing he want is the language.
quote:The amazing thing is that the look on his face was as if he had never seen a window before. The window became a different thing with a symbol attached to it. But it’s not just a symbol. It’s a shared symbol. He can say window to someone else tomorrow who he hasn’t even met yet! And they will know what a window is. There’s something magical that happens between humans and symbols and the sharing of symbols. That was his first Aha! He just went crazy for a few seconds, pointing to everything in the room and signing whatever I signed. Then he collapsed and started crying, and I don’t mean just a few tears. He cradled his head in his arms on the table and the table was shaking loudly from his sobbing. Of course, I don’t know what was in his head, but I’m just guessing he saw what he had missed for twenty-seven years.
Without a word for "window", how can he abstract it in his mind? It have to be with visual imagery, but how could it get abstracted?
quote:It’s another frustration that Ildefonso doesn’t want to talk about it. For him, that was the dark time. Whenever I ask him, and I’ve asked him many, many times over the years, he always starts out with the visual representation of an imbecile: his mouth drops, his lower lip drops, and he looks stupid. He does something nonsensical with his hands like, I don’t know what’s going on. He always goes back to I was stupid.
It seems acquiring the language really helped him out a lot.
Without language:
quote:I think differently. I can’t remember how I thought.
He couldn't remember how he thought...
Probably because he wasn't thinking much at all. This all is making me more confident in my position.
Think about it. How do you think about things? Don't you do it in you language? Can you even imagine thinking about things without using language to do it? Would it in any way be like thinking about things?
I do think religious beliefs rely on that kind of thinking.
I take that as only one part of the purpose of this thread; unless we are to say that the thread title no longer applies, we also have to investigate the belief aspects that may be associated with any given behavior.
The thread title stopped applying on page one. You have some catching up to do. Straggler has only repeated about 10 times what the moderator suggested the scope of the thread was. Sort the thread by his post alone and I'm sure you'll find it.
Let me say it this way, can you come up with an abstract concept in your head without some-kind of internal dialogue? (Some-kind of verbal communication, internal/in your mind, between you and yourself.)
This has been my point, and I've been trying to come up with ways around it.
Take a very primitive man with no language. He's next to a river. The source of the river is unknown.
He could form an image in his mind of a possible source for the river. Say, a giant weeping eye whose tears fill the river (I purposefully avoided using a penis here ).
I think Straggler would call this a "religious belief", and I think it can be arrived at without language.
But I don't think it could be arrived at without some-kind of internal dialogue though.
The whole point was that it could. He sees the river, and no source, and produces an image in his mind of water flowing out of a huge pen-...er eye.
Just the fact that they were trying to find a source for the river, IMO, is evidence of introspective thinking.
"What do I feel feel about this river?" - "What do I think the source of this river is?" - "What else do I know of that also produces water?"
No, no, no. He has no language to think like this with. All he has is mental images. He's looking at a river. He imagines an eye filling it. That is all.
Possible? Religious belief?
Which, even in a lab, I still think it's mimicry and not a learned language.
You'd probably be surprised. Try finding some youtube videos about it. Share anything cool (I'm at work so I don't wanna go surfing youtube).
Sorry, I thought the point was you think he could. So I was just saying that I don't think he could.
Heh, well I was trying to just have him picture the eye without him using words and then the first thing you did was ascribe words to his thoughts
The point was for him to not use words...
Ok. Na I wouldn't call that religious belief. Just the easiest conclusion from what he/she knows.
I wouldn't call it religious belief either. On one side, religious beliefs that I'm aware of are more complicated than that, i.e. more than a simple image or concept. Also, simply imagining something isn't really a "belief".
On the other side, if that IS gonna be called religious belief then its not gonna help us much with actual modern human religious beliefs.
quote:If we broadened the definition of superstition to the point where it contains the kinds of thoughts that I think chimps are capable of, then I think it loses any value as being something to be compared to modern humans' superstitions and/or religious beliefs.
Now, if he/she started to worship the eye, drew images of the eye, presented gifts to the eye...then I would call it religious belief.
Sure, but then I think he would have to have more abstract thinking and thus, require a language to do it in.
Did I do better this time?
Yes!
I'll get back to this.
I risked it... Here's a video of Kanzi being impressive. It certainly can associate the icons with certain words so that might be somewhat of an abstraction, I'm not sure.
Here's another one, but I haven't watched it yet:
It looks to be a little more in depth.
Let me know if you find anything else that's good.
Look at this one, though:
Near the end when she says to put the water on the jelly, the chimp is grabbing the jelly before she gets to that part so it looks like it might just be mimicry, I dunno.
You and I have spent aeons arguing about the existence of beings that cannot be adequately linguistically defined and the widespread human belief in these beings based on subjective experiences that cannot be adequately linguistically described.
I didn't realize that inadequate languistic descriptions were such a big part of my position... but I don't think its any kind of requirement.
Yet now you insist it is impossible for any creature which cannot linguistically express the nature of such beliefs to hold such beliefs.
Not exactly.
My position is that religious beliefs require abstract thought and abstract thought requires language. That doesn't mean that every underlying aspect of the religious belief will be able to be expressed languistically.
CS writes:
Probably because he wasn't thinking much at all.
The languageless man in the case study begged, worked picking crops, had a basic grasp of number and could deal with money. The idea that he was incapable of thought prior to his Eureka moment regarding language is just ridiculous.
I didn't say he was incapable of thought. And you're conflating abstract thinking with the capability of thought.
If someone without language is incapable of abstract thought of any kind how can they grasp the concept that is language itself? The idea of sharing abstract labels for things so that you can communicate with others about them is an abstract concept in and of itself.
If we couldn’t think without language we would never be able to grasp the concept of language itself. How do you get past this rather significant hurdle to your position?
My position is not that thought is impossible without language. But also, I don't think using language necessarily requires grasping the concept of language.
If I wanted to be a difficult arse I would simply say - Define "thinking".
I asked in order to establish a definition.
But to answer your question - Yes they are thinking but in a fairly basic way. I seriously doubt a bird is capable of having a religious experience or of reasoning cause and effect in anything but a fairly instinctive manner.
Yes, I agree. They are thinking even though they don't have language.
This is less true of a chimpanzee and still further less true of a fully functioning human being.
Indeed.
No bird has ever been able to demonstrate the ability to comprehend the abstraction that is self-awareness or learn and use arbitrary symbols to represent objects as far as I know. This seems a rather significant dividing line between the birds in your vid and chimps or humans.
You seemed to be suggesting that if chimps didn't have language then it should follow that they couldn't think.
I don't see why they aren't capable of having "religious-like" thoughts and/or experiences. "Feeling" the "presence" of some entity to which they might ascribe some rather basic causal relationship (e.g. the "something" that causes thunderstorms)
I suppose they could have something like that, but I'm not so sure they're capable of a causal relationship that complex. I wouldn't really call that a "religious belief" though.
Their seeming inability to then communicate any such abstract belief to others probably precludes "religion" as such because that is a much more social and communication requiring social phenomena.
quote:I tend to think of "religious belief" as being more than a simple superstition, but if we'd rather think of this in terms of simple superstitions, then I can do that.
Still, for chimps, I just don't think they have the ability to form the complex abstract thoughts that would be require to hold a superstition.
If we broadened the definition of superstition to the point where it contains the kinds of thoughts that I think chimps are capable of, then I think it loses any value as being something to be compared to modern humans' superstitions and/or religious beliefs.
But how the hell can someone without language (and thus supposedly incapable of abstract thought) come to that same realisation?
I dunno. I'm doubting his realization was as complex as you've made it. I'd lean more towards it being a simple: "This is that."
Anyways, in this case, the man had been around a society and had seen people communicating n'stuff, so he was already a lot farther along. I suppose its not totally impossible for there to be a person who has had abstract thoughts in the absence of a language.
But this isn't really about individuals... And one person seemingly having abstract thoughts without language doesn't mean that animals are capable of abstract thought without language.
CS writes:
Straggler writes:
I don't see why they aren't capable of having "religious-like" thoughts and/or experiences. "Feeling" the "presence" of some entity to which they might ascribe some rather basic causal relationship (e.g. the "something" that causes thunderstorms)
I suppose they could have something like that, but I'm not so sure they're capable of a causal relationship that complex. I wouldn't really call that a "religious belief" though.
What would you call it?
I kind of like: ""religious-like" thoughts and/or experiences"
If god(s) exist why would sentient apes not expereince them in much the same way that humans purport to?
Well, for one, they don't have a language
Apes use of tools and ability to solve puzzles shows a reasonably sophisticated intuitive understanding of cause and effect. Surely you cannot deny this?
No, but wondering about the cause of a thunderstorm just seems out of the range of ther abilities... especially with all the poo-flinging.
I question how much abstract thought belief in supernatural entities requires
If you're going to reduce the requirement to that which includes animals without language, then I think you're going to far to have anything that you can meaningfully compare to modern human religions.
and defy your assertion that "abstract thought requires language".
Its not so absolute. If we're talking about what kinds of non-humans might have religious beliefs, I think its far to say that the animals would have a language with which to express the abstact thoughts that the religion is composed of.
"That" is the object, "this" is the hand-sign. Before, he was just repeating what she signed, then he had the realization that the sign was corresponding to the object.
And what these cases do show is that the assertion you guys have all been making - That an ability for abstract thought necessarily goes hand in hand with language - is just not true.
I don't think so. The furthest I'd have it is you providing an exception to an otherwise good rule of thumb.
Consider a deist who says he believes in "something" that he cannot linguistically define or describe but has felt the "presence" of and to which he ascribes some causal role - Would you argue with him if he described his beliefs as "religious"?
Maybe. Do you know any deists that consider their beliefs as religious?
).
™ Version 4.2
