This is a recent side aspect of another topic, and one which has always interested myself. I am wondering if the potential concerning this notion will or could be reached here in these forums.

Thought is not an unspoken language
It's just an unspoken voice!

The thought itself would remain in the same language
Just unspoken

I agree...but would say that the thought remains the same in ANY language (just unspoken!)

It seems to me that any conscious thought needs to be in language lest the one 'thinking' would not understand what it was thinking.

If understanding is not there, can it be considered conscious thought?

Language is not required for thought.

Language is nothing more than a symbolic method of attempting to convey thoughts from one mind to another.

So from my own personal point of view, to ask if thought is unspoken language is to imply a misunderstanding of what language is.

Unless of course a person views their own mind as something they need to intepret. In that case they would view their own thoughts as a language coming from their own mind. I can see that point of view as well because I can certainly view thoughts in from this perspective too.

However, that's not the only way to view thoughts. I guess this gets into a realm of perception that is truly difficult to describe in words.

The best way that I know to convery this idea is through the notion of the 'river of thoughts'. But that's a rather deep concept that a person must experience directly through meditation.

In short there are two different kinds of 'thoughts'. There are logical thoughts and intuitive thoughts. Logical thoughts require reason. Intuitive thoughts do not.

Reason loans itself to language very well.

Intuition does not.

That's about the only way I know to describe it.

So if a person gets lost in reason, they also get lost in language. The only way out of that jungle is via intuition. It's impossible to reason yourself out of the jungle of reason. And the reason for that should be obvious.

Reason is not the only basis for 'thought'.

I think that's the major point that needs to be clarified.

Once intuition is embraced without the need for reason, then the need for language dissapates and it becomes clear why language is unimportant for thought.

actually language is required for thought. we think in language. everyone has a constant self dialogue

the hardest part of learning a new language is revising that inner dialogue to think in that language

I guess this depends entirely how a person defines 'thought'.

Based on your quote here then animals are incapable of thinking.

Also, a human who might be separated from other humans at birth would also be incapable of thinking since it would never be able to learn a language.

Also, our early ancestors would not have been able to think prior to the development of language.

The idea that language is required for thought is truly a bogus idea that needs to be revisited. This is a fully modern idea that has no basis in reality.

In fact, one of the whole points of transcendental meditation is to transcend this very idea that language is necessary for thought. It is not necessary for thought. On the contrary, langauge is actually a barrier to free thought. Language actually confines thought in many ways.

However, language does help in matters of making it easier to build long chains of reasoning. Therefore a person might argue that language aids and abeds rational thought.

But rational thought is not the only kind of thought.

Moroever, intuitive thought is not necessarily irrational.

One thing that seems to be missing here entirely is a definition of various kinds of thought and thought processes.

When discussing logical thought, (i.e. long trains of reasoning based on chains of cause and effect), then language becomes extremely useful in supporting these long trains of reason.

However, this kind of formal logical train of reasoning is not the only means of thinking. Animals most certainly have thoughts without the need for these long chains of reasoning.

So much of this may very well come down to a person's very definition of "thought" and what they mean by that word.

I think that Zeta-clones communicate through some form of telepathy

Every bit of modern research I have read contradicts this stand point.

We also do not think in imagery either.

All thought is more fundamental then language or the sense modalities.

------

I completely agree with Abra on this one.

let me think on this one..................

In what language?

I agree that we think in language. We dream in language also. When I am here in the US everything for me is in English, when I go to Greece (where I am from)I have to switch my way of thinking and think in Greek. It's weird. I was flying back from Greece one time, after being there for almost a year, when I was asked by the flight attendent how I liked my coffee. I could not remember how to say "black" I kept thinking "mavro", and telling myself in Greek "that's not right, what word am I looking for in English?" I finally said "just plain". I'm sure she thought I was an idiot.

Not certain about this one. I know there are times when I am thinking but there aren't words... solving a mechanical problem, admiring my surroundings. It seems to me that a baby is thnking before it has language.

But then again I know there are plenty of times I am thinking in words.

Is thought a unspoken language?

I don't see why not.

I mean imagine a person who is blind and cannot hear anything. I would imagine that his brain is still functioning and thinking at its best potential. It didn't develop a spoken language. He never heard what it sounds like and he can't see either to know. Perhaps feel with his fingertips is a possibility.

I think thought has more to it then just language.

I think this is a good example of how WE DO NOT THINK IN LANGUAGE.
The whole time you knew you had the wrong word. The concept in your mind was [A] and when you matched the word you where using to express that concept it did not = [A] and so you knew you must continue to search for an appropriate word.

We do not think in language we think in concepts, that get translated at another processing center in the brain.

Thought is more fundamental then language.
However one of the main roles of thought for humans is communication, so its challenging to separate them when looking at the final product when it gets pushed to the conscious level.

I'm currently watching another Teaching Company Course entitled: "Biology and Human Behavior: The Neurological Origins of Individuality" by Dr. Robert Sapolsky.

In the very first lecture he addresses the issue of "boxed thought" and he demonstrates how we box up thought using language. He also addresses the historical perspective of how many scientists have fallen into this trap of allowing language to box them in. He illustrates his point using the colors of the rainbow.

He shows that we are taught to 'box in colors' by name (by giving them word labels). And this works well as long as we stick to the fundamentals of this boxed-in system. In other words, give someone a picture of a rainbow and they will pick out the major colors that we have learned to name using word labels.

However, what studies have shown is that people become totally confused when given unconventional views.

For example. Just take the part of the rainbow that we normally associate with the label "Blue". It's easy to pick out this band of light from an entire rainbow. But now just take that blue band and expand it as a rainbow of blue hues. Then give these bands to people to 'label'. What happens with absolute consistency is that people tend to use color names that reach far outside of this blue band. In other words, they'll say that one end of this band is 'Green' and the other end is 'violet'.

In other words, words aren't even dependable in a normal setting. We don't think in terms of words, we simply try to use words to convey our thoughts the best we can. Words are often just relative in their meaning.

Words are not thoughts. They are just a very crude method that we have devised to try to convey what we are thinking about.

^^You need to read this book Creative and Bushido^^^

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lfTPTFN94o

What a wonderful conversation between Dawkins and Dennett.

Double post, opps

Love to listen and read about Richard Dawkins. I have a book from him about evolution and you would think Darwin's books are huge. I think Dawkin's books get just a big as his. lol

I am waiting eagerly for his latest book to come out for children where he gives sound explanations for fairytale and religion stories. Thanks for the link