Relatively thought-provoking questions?

[Luigi Ka-master]

I'm responding to the creator's original post.

While it is true that language affects the way the human mind thinks, it is certainly possible to use your brain to full capacity, even if you were unable to communicate in any way.

It goes kind of like this-
When you are born, you have a Tabula Rasa. A clean slate. An empty mind. When you see your first cat, you do not know that it is called a "cat". You do not really know anything about it; whether it is the only one of its kind, whether it is a different cat from the next on you see, etc. But as you progress, you pile more and more objects into your "clean slate" so that now when you look at something that is big, red, and spherical, you think of a big red ball. You are able to reference these things by comparing them to other objects or experiences you have encountered, or read about, or whatever.

So language is simply a method of speaking aloud (or signing, or writing, communicating) these "forms" your slate has absorbed and filed away.

Think about it - what are all mythological creatures like? Other, real creatures.
A pegasus is just a horse with wings.
A dragon is a winged, or unwinged magical serpent.
A griffin is a mix between an eagle and a lion.
A chimera is a grotesque combination of monkey, goat, serpent, lion, and rooster (or any combination of animals, depending on the origin).

The human brain cannot postulate things it has no comparison for. It is impossible to think of an idea, or mythological animal, or alien, or sense, or emotion, or color that is not a derivative or synthesis of "forms" you have experienced in your life time.

But to actually answer your question - yes, a person without any idea of a codified "language" would still possess the cumulative experiences it has witnessed, and be able to contemplate them entirely internally.

Woah, awesome response. Thanks. That definately helped clarify things.

I cannot imagine that being entirely true. I was under the impression that both brains can controll both sides of the body, otherwise the brains would have to impossibly coordinate with each other digestion, pain sensory and other sub-concious processes. What would dictate what brain each organ is assigned to, especially organs that are in both halves of the sigittal plain?

Also, if each head was only in control of half the body then I wonder how the hemispheres are divided for each brain. Because, in a normal body, the left hemisphere of the brain controls the right part of the body. But in this case, if one brain already only controlled one part of the body, would that control be further subdivided into the left hemisphere controlling the right quarer of her half?

I'm thinkin' you'd have to have like a super-masters degree in neurology/anatomy to be able to know how that would work...I also get a slight impression that there's something fake in the vid...but I dunno.

 

[Fox_Rocks]

No, that video is completely true. I saw it on TV somewhere once. Unless they faked it for the TV show, which would be kind of weird.

Also, I have a kind of dumb question. Is the following statement true or false?

This statment is false.

Another dumb one:
Is this answer to this question no?

I've also had that question about language and deep thought. It's hard to think about. They definitely can associate things, but they don't know red as red, so they can't describe an object as red. Another example would be that they could not come up with this very question. They would not know what langauge is or deep thought is, so they could not ask the question. Well, at least that's how I see it. I find it pretty confusing.

I now have a better idea of how to explain what I said above. These people cannot create names that they can use for things without them being tangible. That is, things that can't touch, see, smell, hear, or taste. They can't create words for "thought," for example, or for "ideas." They also can't (easily) create verbs they cannot do. They could have a word for "jump," but there would be no word for "is." So, they could not think, "This is thought." Just kind of throwing my ideas out there. *shrugs*

 

[Mr.Lombardi34]

I have something to ponder:

I have a house cat. We've had her for three years now and we say things to her of course. She obviously associates "No" with "Stop doing what I'm doing" an "Good" as "Keep doing this", but when we talk to eachother, I wonder how much she picks up. Saying "Red" as we point to something we consider red for instance - Does she remen=mber that and now understand what we mean when we describe things as red? I mean, By the time a house cat has lived in a house for 12 years, would she basicly understand what we were talking about? It seems impossible not to learn what some things mean by being there for so long...What do you guys know/think about this?

 

[Fox_Rocks]

I have something to ponder:

I have a house cat. We've had her for three years now and we say things to her of course. She obviously associates "No" with "Stop doing what I'm doing" an "Good" as "Keep doing this", but when we talk to eachother, I wonder how much she picks up. Saying "Red" as we point to something we consider red for instance - Does she remen=mber that and now understand what we mean when we describe things as red? I mean, By the time a house cat has lived in a house for 12 years, would she basicly understand what we were talking about? It seems impossible not to learn what some things mean by being there for so long...What do you guys know/think about this?

I would say, to a point, yes, they would start to associate certian words with things. Well, of course they do, because of the "No" example you provided. But I think there is a limit to this. I do not know what that limit would be, and I don't want to try to be specific, but I'm pretty sure it wouldn't go so far as being able to understand the whole English language. I'm not all that sure though, I just kind of wanted to put something out there.

 

[Mr.Lombardi34]

I wish I would get an answer from purple stuff, he answered the first question really good.

 

[Endless Nightmares]

I remember reading an article about how language affects the way a person's brain works...

A Japanese man and an American man had their brains scanned while they solved a variety of math problems. The American man's brain was very active in the area that handles numbers and written language. The Japanese man's brain was more active in a different area which handles symbols, objects, and shapes.

You know, because of the different way the two languages work...

I don't know what I'm getting at here but maybe a person who was never exposed to language would experience thought through scenery and nature he sees every day.

 

[PurpleStuff]

I have something to ponder:

I have a house cat. We've had her for three years now and we say things to her of course. She obviously associates "No" with "Stop doing what I'm doing" an "Good" as "Keep doing this", but when we talk to eachother, I wonder how much she picks up. Saying "Red" as we point to something we consider red for instance - Does she remen=mber that and now understand what we mean when we describe things as red? I mean, By the time a house cat has lived in a house for 12 years, would she basicly understand what we were talking about? It seems impossible not to learn what some things mean by being there for so long...What do you guys know/think about this?

I'm certainly not as well read in the area of animal/human communication as I am in language and semantics (not that I'm particularly well read in that, either), but I would say no.

Speaking from personal experience, I think that dogs do not truly understand any language directed at them. Since it is impossible for them to vocalize as articulately as we do, they have no basis for understanding that actual words we speak. What they do seem to have a capacity for, however, is inflection and tone.

There is a very large difference between a dog's bark, whimper, and growl. In the same way, you greet, call, reprimand, and reward your pet in very different tones. You might sound excited and a little breathy when you call your pup, you make a cooing baby-esque noise when you pat it for a job well done, and you lower your voice and add edge when it has soiled the carpet. The dog (at least mine, a dachsund) knows the difference between all of these as clearly as if it had heard another dog vocalize to it in their own "language".

Once, I even tried calling Lily (my dog) by an entirely different word, but I used the same lilting call. She responded 9 times out of 10.

So while I realize that dogs and cats are not the same animal, I would assume that cats operate in a similar manner. Both species have a symbiotic relationship with their human companions, and both are completely unable to produce anything close to comprehensible human speech (other than your occasional "freak" happening, which I think we all accept as simple mimicking).

The only animals I'm aware of that have a functional understanding of human language on the same level we do are the great apes. I'm sure you're familiar with Koko, the signing gorilla. Coincidentally, she kept cats as pets, as well.

 

[Mr.Lombardi34]

What about parrots then? Do they understand or just copy what they hear?