The above is from another thread in which massagetrade(the author) addresses this notion...


Very well said massage.

I have some other thoughts on the matter, and I want everyone who is participating to know that I appreciate the time and thought put forth thus far.

Your so welcome!


********** Sorry kind of a mind vomit post from that video . . Be forwarned before wasting your life reading this hahaha

Its a very interesting parallel that the world, or at least the civilization of the world as its own entity.

Its most obvious to say that the world isn't something we consider alive as a individual. If you consider the parallel of intelligent beings on earth being like neurons in a brain. You see a similar structure, we as a whole, we are the consciousness of this world in perhaps more then a metaphorical way, the functional aspects are the same, its only in definitions that we see a slight shift.

After all protein is not alive (its a macro molecule), and yet without it life would not exist. Only dead parts make living creatures. Only unconscious particles make up the parts of minds which are the only conscious things.

But then if together the connections of the various parts of the earth mind (the internet and media connects each of us) have been made faster and able to spread new ideas all over very quickly, with that advance comes responsibility.

I love the part at 26:00 in where he says, "these ideas are going to spread all over the world . . . . we have to start thinking of the environmental impact of our ideas."



It does seem to be intrinsically true that complexity forms from less complex things, this seems backwards to us at first glance becuase we do not see horse shoes made by less complex things, no houses made by bricks, of bricks, but not by bricks, or even gravity.

But the chemical bonds of particles do increase stability inherently thought natural selection. Brains like wise gain capability even through a chaotic process. Its a bottom up processes that has no limits but time, and each new crane increases the speed at which we can add directional growth.

I think just such a "crane" happened to achieve "consciousness" during human evolution.

This is a metaphorical "crane" mentioned in the video (I know some of us cant watch it ) It represents small changes that = huge and often exponential advantages during developmental processes such as evolution, such as the developmental processes of the brain during each stage of life, wonderful parallels.

Perhaps Chaos theory bridges the gap in the parallel?

Sorry for getting a little off topic, the video does address many aspects of the mind.

DAH I so wish you could watch this Abra.

I tell you what, you need to send me your address Im gunna start burning stuff for you and sending cd's ahhaha.

Being short on time, I want to say that perhaps the focus should be upon the meaning of the term language, rather than the term thinking.

I find several key points here in this thread - some of which negate the validity of the claim and some of which support it - all of which are valid in their own right.

Perhaps there is a way to remove any contradiction by simply focusing on the concept of language rather than the concept of thinking. While I do not see language itself as a problem, I sense that the strict definitions of the term are what constitute the root of the controversy here.

How does one make any sense or gain understanding from any form of life experience, whether it be through spoken word(one kind of language), through mathematical computation(another kind of language), through musical composition(another kind of language), without some kind of language?


Moreover, how does one acquire the ability to understand anything without language? Is thought such without understanding what it is that is going through the mind and/or senses? I know that that is worded wrongly, but hopefully the intended messsage prevails.

Perhaps something can be gained here if the perspective from pre-language animals is taken. Abra mantioned animals and their ability/inability to think, and also referenced infant human children. Massage mentioned the experiences in human life which do not seem to be unspoken language, but clearly indicate some form of conscious thought.

Bilingual brains show strong evidence of the internal connection from thought(unspoken language) into spoken language, and there has been an example given here. Jeremy has attempted to show this example as 'strong' evidence against equating thought to unspoken language, but I personally did not find that argument to be sound.

I am consciously attempting to find any and all evidence against the notion to be worthy of further contemplation, but the language game itself is the only means of expression. Therefore, attempting to conclusively show compelling evidence to the contrary hinges upon the ability to separate the content of one's thought - which must be expressed linguistically - from the process by which it is. This is a feat in and of itself.

Still thinking...



Thanks to all!

What can we make of the distinct link between the most intelligent animals having the most complex languages?

Can thought be equated to unspoken language without thought being dependent upon sharing that language? I think so.

Is language a product of thought? I think so.

Can the activity of the brain be considered to be thought if the subject has no way to connect the happenings of it's own brain/mind in a logical construct of which it remembers and understands?

just an overview of the different schools of thought from wiki


The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis in linguistics states that the structure of one's mother-tongue influences the way one's mind perceives the world. It has found at best very limited experimental support, at least in its strong form. For instance, a study showing that speakers of languages lacking a subjunctive mood such as Chinese experience difficulty with hypothetical problems has been discredited. However, another study has shown that subjects in memory tests are more likely to remember a given color if their mother language includes a word for that color.

According to Cognitive therapy, founded by Aaron T. Beck, our emotions and behavior are caused by our internal dialogue. We can change ourselves by learning to challenge and refute our own thoughts, especially a number of specific mistaken thought patterns called "cognitive distortions". Cognitive therapy has been found to be effective by empirical studies.

General Semantics is a school of thought founded by engineer Alfred Korzybski and later popularized by S. I. Hayakawa and others, which attempted to make language more precise and objective. It makes many basic observations of the English language, particularly pointing out problems of abstraction and definition.

E-prime is a constructed language identical to the English language but lacking all forms of "to be", like Arabic. Its proponents claim that dogmatic thinking seems to rely on "to be" language constructs, and so by removing it we may discourage dogmatism.

Neuro-linguistic programming, founded by Richard Bandler, claims that language "patterns" and other things can affect thought and behavior. It takes ideas from General Semantics and hypnosis, especially that of the famous therapist Milton Erickson. Many do not consider it a credible study, and it has no empirical scientific support.

Advocates of non-sexist language including some feminists say that the English language perpetuates biases against women, such as using male-gendered terms such as "he" and "man" as generic. Many authors including those who write textbooks now conspicuously avoid that practice, in the case of the previous examples using words like "he or she" or "they" and "human race". Political correctness is similar, but it is a loose cultural meme and has never been formally codified. Both are considered widely controversial.

NOt all people think prior to speaking.

But thought is an influnce of speech.

Sometimes I believe it is.

Language is a developmental process dependent on thought that extends the ability of a thinking creature to communicate. I am not sure I understand the idea of unspoken language. If by language you mean any formal structure designed to communicate information, then I completely agree.

Language is a product of a desire to communicate and the ability to think up a way to do it. So indeed I agree. I really liked Abra' source that mentioned language as clothing for thoughts. Its true, its like data packets.

I don't know about logic, but certainly a mind at its most basic level must be able to structure memories, experiences, sensations and make some kind of extrapolation from those experiences, it may not be logical, but I would consider it thinking.


Some really great posts in this thread with some amazing information in them.

quiet_2008 Loved the post on how language can effect our behaviors and shapes our thoughts. Its true, not just the formalisms of the language but also the commonality of derogatory usage.

Many things in our life have a vast (and sometimes unseen) influence on our thinking.

I had written a lengthy and well articulated direct response to several posters here....


Then lost it... over sensitive pad!!!


Maybe again later...

Abra stated...



Agreed.



I disagree...completely. This would completely depend upon what one believes that the function of language is.

The premise is false. Language has one primary function, and it implies much more than just conveying thought. It is more inclusive and fundamental than that. It is the way that a conscious being organizes it's own thought, ties these into memory, and places identity and therefore value upon all else. It is how a creature capable of conscious thought constructs it's own understanding of sensory experience...level upon level. This explains why the most intelligent creatures have the most complex languages. It is a necessity for the building of complex thoughts. All conscious thought is birthed from some sort of experience, whether directly or inferred. Language, no matter if complex and more rudimentary, categorizes conscious thought and applies meaning to that experience.



That is the only function, all that follows does so because it is facilitated by language.



The concept of intuition cannot even be considered without the complex construct by which the idea came to be recognized... language.



How does it become clear? This implies clarity of understanding. How does this follow from dismissing the very means by which understanding is had? The only time language is unimportant for thought, is if the thinker has no level of understanding concerning the content - if those thoughts have no identity. T

Again, I am not sure how one would come to dismiss the relevence of the vehicle(language) itself when considering how wonderful the destination(intuition) is. Knowing what intuition is requires the underlying language which defines and thereby identifies it.

Language, whether completely self-contained(unspoken) or expressed somehow is the means by which one possesses an identification of the world.

quiet wrote...



I want to say that the most fundamental and rudimentary forms of curiosity(thought) do not require language, however, I do believe that that begins the process of acquiring a more complex form of langauge. Self dialogue is a product of this, but a newborn interest in sensory experience can begin to formulate conclusions based upon a sense of curiosity about the world around without previously identifying that which is being perceived. I feel it is a mistake in thought to attribute the existence of all thought to language. It seems to be the other way around at the primary levels, at least. That is not to say that complex ideas are possible without language. One must possess the ability to identify the individual elements which, when combined, constitute the totality of the extrapolation in thought, even if the concise identity of those pieces are later consciously lost.

Abra responded to the same quote from quiet as such...




This all follows if all thought is dependent upon language for it's existence. Simple forms are not... curiosity itself is innately had in intelligent life forms and is the 'life giver' to language, identity, and meaning.



That first paragraph over simplifies the importance of language when considering how it is embedded into the very structure of complex thought. The second, which holds language as a 'barrier to free thought' seems to be confusing the concept of absolute certainty with the means by which it is had. Language itself does not confine thought. Absolute certainty does. Do not throw out the baby with the bath water.



All complex thought is logical. It all follows from previously accepted forms of identity. The soundness or correctness of these constructs is unimportant to the discussion.

I think, once again, that the confusion lies in the understanding of the language function.

The complexity of thought does indeed need to be taken into consideration. There are some ways that intelligent beings can think that do not require the things in focus to be previously identified. That is how those things come to possess an identity, through curiosity alone. I believe it is quite safe to say that prior to language an intelligent being can wonder ' What is that?' without ever thinking in those terms. However, the subject of interest in this example will gain an identity in conscious thought, and thereby begin the framework by which understanding is had.



I am gradually working my way through the thread in response mode...

As far as I can see we simply have two entirely different views of this. You may call these "Two different ways of thinking" which would be somewhat ironic since you seem to be attemtping to define your way of thinking as the standard.

Based on your quote above it appears that you cannot concieve of a concept until it's been labeled and described. (i.e. intuition).

From my point of view the concept existed long before it had ever been labeled or described.

I give you the following words of a very wise man:

"You can know the name of a bird in all the languages of the world, but when you're finished, you'll know absolutely nothing whatever about the bird... So let's look at the bird and see what it's doing -- that's what counts. I learned very early the difference between knowing the name of something and knowing something." - Richard Feynman

Based on your quote above, you seem to be suggesting that "intutition" can not be known until we've evented the word for it and defined what the word means.

To me, that's backwards thinking.

From my point of view the concept of intuition always existed and was always known. It simply hadn't yet been labeled and categorized.

So I would disagree that language is required to know of intuition. However, I will agree that language allows for far more complex analytical thought.

Perhaps you're limiting your discussion to only analytical thought. In that case I would agree that language was a necessary tool required to for getting complex analytical thought off the ground. I will most certainly agree that we could never have achieved our tecnhological status without language.

However, from a pure philosophyical point of view I reject the notion that language is required for thought.

So in answer to the question of the thread title, "Is thought unspoken language", my own answer to that question is no. Thought and language are two entirely different things.

That's just my own personal thoughts on the matter put into language the best I can.



Again I would disagree with this sentiment as well. Going back to Feynman's quote. Knowning the name of the bird is useless. Real knowledge comes from knowing the bird.

Language = the label give to "bird".

However, the concept of "bird" is knowable without language.

So I totally disagree that language is the means by which one possesses an indentification of the world.

Language is totally unnecessary, especially on a primal level.

Clearly when we move into a world of abstract thought and abstract logic then language does become important because without language there would be no way of communicating these ideas to another mind.

However, even in this case I would argue that the concepts were actualy realized or thought about before the words were invented that we use to label these things.

Look at any great discovery. The thoughts came FIRST before the language.

Even Einstien knew the concepts he had in mind before he could express them in language. This is especially true with his General Relativity. He knew what he needed to achieve, and went about finding people who were adept at mathematics to help him FIND the language that would express what he already KNEW in his mind.

So he understand the concepts even before he could put them into language.

Moreover, if thought was language, then wouldn't it also follow that all humans would have devised the same language to express their thoughts? It seems to me that the mere fact that so many different languages have evolved this implies that humans are making them up in an attempt to convey their thoughts.

But no, I don't hold the view that language is the means by which we possess an identification of the world. Though many people do fall into that way of thinking. And of course, in a society where education and credentials are important, this may be true in a social context. We are often recognized by our ability to communicate and we are often identified by what we appear know.

So we have certainly come to depend upon language in this modern age. Language has become extremely important to modern living.

But on a primal level language is not necessary for consciouness or rudimentary thinking. Clearly a caveman isn't going to stumble onto quantum physics without language. Language is important to helping us keep track of very complex concepts. But it's not the primodial basis of thought.

That's my view. Your thoughts may differ.

I think things are being confused here James. Being short on time, I will attempt to clarify the differences between your perception of my claims and my claims later, my friend.



I think that if you re-read what has been written, your perspective regarding what it is that my claims state may change.

I think in pictures. Makes it difficult to put thoughts into words sometimes.

I am currently in thought-communication with evil robots

I have a question...



How else does one conceive of any abstract notion, if not through recognition, identification, and meaning? Not one of these can even exist without some form of language to facilitate the understanding - be it self contained(unspoken language), or otherwise.

Sorry Creative, but I think you are making a fundamental error in thought!!! You are basing your opinion on how YOU think because it's a way you understand but you are not aware of some other facts. We’ve learned, through several areas of science, a great deal about language and the many ways in which people think.

I’m joining this discussion late. I have reviewed all the posts and of all of them I think Abra and Bushi make the best points. Lilypetal, too, stated:


This is exactly the direction we need to be considering. Anthropology has a field of study completely devoted to language. They have long understood that language, which is used to communicate abstract thought, is a formal and symbolic tool of reference. Someone mentioned art and they were correct to bring it up and here is why.

The science of psychology has only recently begun to develop ways in which to understand and treat children with brain malfunctions. (since about the 1960’s). Once, all these children where simply categorized as retarded because they lacked the ability to develop and utilize language well, and therefore, they were thought to lack the ability to think, hense ‘retarded’.

We know, today, that is not true. In fact over the last 40 to 50 years there have been a great many disorders discovered in children that are not related to mental retardation. Because so little is known about each of these disorders (causes and effective treatment) they have been grouped into one category called autism spectrum disorders. These include autistic disorder, Asperger’s disorder, Rett’s disorder and some others. Asperger's disorder is unusual within the spectrum because these kids actually communicate very well, it is their emotions that seem to be cross-wired. But emotions can be taught to an Asperger's child if we can communicate with that child in a way they will understand. Please read on.

Thanks to some brilliant people who have had to overcome their disorder (within this spectrum), notably those with Asperger’s disorder, we have learned that people do indeed ‘think’ in different ways – apart from language. For example – as Lilypetal stated, many people think in pictures – I know, I am one of those people, and as Lily also stated, putting thoughts into words is one of my most difficult tasks. I am a writer because I can SEE the pictures I am creating as I type the words and I “paint” the words to match the pictures in my head – but I am not a good speaker and I tend to be pretty quiet (unless I’m very comfortable with the people I’m with). Some think in the most amazing and eloquent kinds of design – these people tend to be very technical, very scientific and they can ‘build’ their thoughts with a blueprint. I can’t do that. In fact when I think about my past and try to recall an event I MUST find the pictures that relates to that event or I can not recall it.

Language is a way to communicate the various kinds of abstract thought that occurs in a person’s head. We HAVE to learn how each individual within the autistic spectrum of disorders actually thinks in order to find a common ground for communication. We can not teach is we can not find a logical way to reach the 'thought processes' of these kids. But if we do, we find these kids do learn and can communicate - if given the tools and an understanding teacher that can reach the type of thinking and how that person needs to communicate.

Does all that make sense?