Look up Phineas Gage for a case history of someone who had his front lobe blown away in an accident but survived to live on, although his behavior changed radically.

Another example, of non-cortex-thinking comes from Charles Whitman, the Texas Watchtower Sniper.

Whitman was known in his community as being a loving caring person through most of his life. He was an Eagle Scout and played an instrument in an orchestra. For all intents and purposes he was thinking very logically.

But then one day (actually over a period of time) he decided to buy a high-powered rifle, got to the top of a watchtower and start killing people randomly until he finally took his own life.

His autopsy revealed that he had a brain tumor that had put a lot of pressure on the Amygdala. This is a very primal part of the brain that is responsible for going into defense mode when we are trapped in a dangerous situation. Obviously this pressure caused Whitman to feel trapped and defensive until it finally took it's uliamtely form of going out and killing people.

So this is a case where primal (non-logical) thought was driving behavior. Because of pressure caused by the brain tumor the Amygdala was sending out thought processes that overwhelmed any analytical thought.

The point being that there are many different kinds of thought processes going on in our brains. The Cerebral Cortex and Frontal Lobe are merely responsible for the 'logical' end of things.

That may account for self-recognition. After all, the ability to recognize oneself as being different from others is a logical process. So in that sense logic is required for self-recognition.

I am quite familiar with that case, James. It clearly shows how the mind is a product of the brain.

I fear getting into the definition of thought will confuse the issue at hand, but it is worth a try.

Anything outside of personal understanding - consciously thinking about it - cannot be considered as thought. The focus on an unconscious portion of language in this discussion does not refute this. The unconcious elements which take over during dreams, are but a representation of previously held conscious language(representational understanding). It is still a product and therefore facilitated by the elements of language.

Curiosity itself, does not need any form language to exist. One can wonder 'What is that' without ever thinking in those terms. In fact, I think that there is sufficient evidence to warrant a belief in the claim that language is birthed by this. This is not to say that all curiosity is separate from language, just the most rudimentary forms of it.

Well, you've pretty much forced your own definition there.

You require 'undederstanding' to be analytical (i.e. logical understanding).

I consider other forms of 'understanding'. A lot of animals react to visual stimuli without conciously thinking about it.

For example, a mouse sees a cat and runs to a safe place. The mouse did not need to think, "Hey that cat might eat me!"

All the mouse needed to think about is, "This isn't good, remove myself from this situation". Although the mouse didn't even think in those terms, I just had to put it in those terms because that the only way to make use of language.

There's no other way to explain the mouses behavior without putting it into language. Yet the mouse doesn't need to understand language to know to avoid cats.

That's basically where I'm coming from. There is a non-language aspect to preciving situations without any need to logically think them through.

I still consider that to be a form of 'thinking'.

Mice THINK, in that sense.

Clearly we just differ on the linquistic symbol (or word) thought.

Regarding the sniper...

The driving factors of internal language are not dependent upon it's accurate correlation with reality. That is more than evident in that case. None-the-less, whatever root cause was there for the behaviour itself, it was facilitated through self-contained language, meaning, and understanding among some other things which include the concept of a formal language as well.



Good example!

Understanding does not equate to unconscious reaction stemming from visual perception.

Instinctual behaviour is not conscious thought and needs no language. Thought outside of basic curiosity requires some form of self-contained or expressed language. Unconscious reaction stemming from previous conscious experience and/or memory does not equate to conscious thinking either. Such is the case with the mouse int the following example. That fear is not innate in mice, just as cats do not instinctually fear and therefore run from a dog. They develop this through conscious experience which is registered into their own memory using their own form of language, whatever that may be.



I am reminded of what I wrote earlier...



The mouse does not need to understand our language, however in the case example provided here the mouse had some form of representational identity regarding a cat in it's memory which sparked it's survival instinct.



Perhaps in it's own language...



This is a fine example of how language does not need expression. All brain activity is not thought.

I think..therefore I am!

In that case, the very term "understanding" in this context would then be nothing more than being satisfied with our own symbolic logical analysis of things.

This may well be true.

This reminds me of another Feynman quote:

"I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it is much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers that might be wrong." - Richard Feynman

Understanding then becomes nothing more than what we think we know. Many people feel a need to think they know things so they invent logical symbology in their minds that they feel represents logically what they think they know.

However, look at Feynman, he seems to have beat the system. Instead of having a need to symbolize things logically to pretend that he knows something he simply recognizes that it's logically better not to have answers than to have answers that might be wrong.

This is logic coming full circle.

Anything can be logically justified. Even not knowing.

Mice don't think..therefore mice aren't!

Now..I have seen many Tom and Jerry cartoons...and that mouse can think himself out of any situation!

Creative, this is my attempt to see if I understand what you have been saying.

While reading your clarification postings I kept thinking about some of the great minds of the past. Let me give you these examples to see if I'm understanding what you have been meaning to get across.

Michelangelo – his drawings were the power behind his thought and creativity, because there simply were no (common) words to clearly describe (in writing) what Michelangelo had created in his head.

Brunelleschi (whose patron during the Renaissance was Cosimo de’Medici) revolutionized architecture, but not with words – for there were no words to explain the concepts in his mind. Like Michelangelo he had to draw his concepts AND he had to be there to direct the implementation of the building because even Brunelleschi could not imagine the possible consequences of building what he drew. When a stumbling block presented itself, he ‘literally’ went back to the drawing board.

Is this what you are talking about – the ability to think in concepts without formal language attachments? If this is so, are you relating the symbolic thought processes to a self-contained form of language, one that can only be known by the thinker and must be translated into a common language (i.e., pictures, math, writing) in order to be passed on?

All conscious thinking is logical in some sense. That is not to say that it is correct/accurate in it's construct. It is to say that future symbols gain there identity and meaning by relating to past ones. Inductively speaking, the language construct - no matter of the particular elements - is built upon itself. The foundation of which stems from curiosity alone.

It should be noted that a conscious creature is not necessarily conscious in thought. In other words, being aware of one's own language is not required for a thing to be conscious. There are many animals which live complete life cycles without ever thinking about what they are doing. They are conscious, meaning awake and responsive to the enviroment, yet have no thought concerning their own actions. They do not have a choice in the matter because it is all instinctually patterned behaviours. Those animals still may possess a means of communication. Several different insects come to mind.

This would clearly show that some form of instinctual language is possible without conscious thought or ants and bees are capable of rudimentary thought! Interestingly enough, language then, can be shown to be instinctually based.



Hmmmm.... that sorta changes a few things, or not?

Still thinking....

Di...

That is a good example of how one's own language is sometimes no able to be translated into a common form, yet understanding is had none-the-less.

Sorry for the overlap in posts...

Oh my gosh, flowers and a smooch - thanks Creative.



Ok, so now that I think I understand more of what you mean, can we take it a bit further?

Some of the greatest minds in math lived millenia befor their abstact concepts were fully recognized. This is fact.

Do you think the development of a common language has increased our ability to 'think' critically, more abstractly? OR did the development of a common language increase our ability to give our creations give concrete representations, allowing us to 'fill in the blanks'?

Example: If a picture, like one of Michelangelos' designs, is perceived by other minds, how many can put together the concepts to 'create' the thing the picture represents? But without the picture, would it ever have been created?

Similarly, without language to describe how a thing works, how many would conceptualize the how's of it - without taking it apart?

I guess my point, an attempt to come back to one I made earlier, is that common languages are endowed with limitations and may even prohibit full actualization of complex abstract thinking.

This is NOT in contention with what I think you are saying, but rather, backs up your concept. Because, if one stops thinking OUTSIDE of a common language (as in holding a fundamental belief, without futher thought) that person is denying their internal language structure and limits their ability to fully conceptualize internal abstract thought.

Does that make sense to you?

OK - I'll try to get back tomorrow after work. I have a movie to watch (erotica)- I call it movie voyerism in the absense of reality.

Good will to all!

di

I just wanted to rehash the following statements.



As the thread title you ask, "Is thought unspoken language?"

But then as the thread progresses you demand certain definitions to be true. For example, you demand that conscious thought is defined by "understanding". You then define understanding as being able to recognize abstract notions, such as a 'self' and what the 'self' is going to do.

So in a sense all you are really doing is constructing your own systematic definitions (symbolic language) to build a picture that by your definitions satisfies a model that you'd like to abstractly construct.

I think this is a perfect example of how language is no so much a means of understanding but rather a means of constructing arbitrary systems of definitions that appear to create an illusion of understanding.

The bottom line to ask is this; "Exactly what is it that you are understanding?"

Are you understanding something about the difference between the way animals and humans think?

Or are you simply understanding a superficial model of definitions that you have arbitrarily decided to create?

This is a serious question and should not be viewed from a defensive position as though it is some form of personal attack on your position. That's not the point to it at all.

It's a very sincere effort to inquire of what language actaully is.

You have presented definitions, that I'm personally not prepared to accept as being representative of the world around me. Mainly your distinction between how animals and humans percieve the world and the reasons they go about their daily activities.

For example, I'm not prepared to accept that all animals act entirely on instinct. Neither am I prepared to believe that humans are not driven by instinct more than they realize. On the contrary I believe we are driven by instinct far more than we realize.

Just because we can create premises and definitions in our minds doesn't mean that those ideas and concepts equate to understanding.

All we are truly understanding is the ficticious models that we have constructed in our minds based on our premises and defintions.

This is, in fact, the basis of meditation in many Eastern philosophies. The idea there being that real truth or real understanding cannot be had via this sort of arbitary language-type of thinking. Labeling things, putting definitions on them, and then forming conclusions based on those labels and definitions.

Instead, the idea is to abandon that kind of analytical thought to enter into a state of pure consciousness that is uncontaminated by that kind of analysis. But that's precisely where many animals would reside in their consciouness. They would have a non-analytical consciouness that, according to Eastern traditions, would be more closely associated with the actual act of being.

So in a very real sense you are presenting a case for just the opposite. You seem to be suggesting that analysis, labeling, and logically analyizing things is required for what you consider to be a conscious state of being.

I think the bottom line in all of this is that this type of thinking ultimately comes down to accepting the definitions and premises of your mental symbolic language.

Our ability to think symbolically may actually be our nemesis in a way. Obviously this kind of thinking also allows us to become technological. But in that process we lose touch with the more primordial form of being that animals enjoy.

I don't believe that we've lost that innate form of consciousness. In fact, I believe we'd all be far better off if we could find a way to return to it. And this is precisely what many of the Eastern techniques of meditation attempt to achieve. They attempt to transcend the cerebral cortex and experience our innate being that resides beneath that.

It's not that we want to forfeit our analytical thinking, it's just that it's important to realize that this is a layer that reside above are true primordial nature.

We are animals first, and linguists second. Not the other way around. Our ability for language is not what constitutes our underlying consciousness. Our ability for language merely expands on that underlying consciousness.

That's how I view our situation as humans.

Do ants think?

All I am saying is that if conscious thought goes through a mind/brain, then it does so through some form of language which the one doing the thinking recognizes, identifies with, and therefore comprehends the meaning of in some way.

I really do not see a problem with that.

'Thought is unspoken language'

The beauty/elegance of it, in my eyes at least, is what must follow regarding that which constitutes a language. The commonly held notion of what language is, which is being used as a defense against my proposition, fails miserably in actuality - does it not?

This is the point that I'm trying to make.

The concept of language is nothing more than a manmade idea. There is no such thing as language beyond whatever description we give to it.

Therefore, when you speak of what language is, all you are really talking about is how you would like to define the concept.

There is no actual thing out there called language. That very concept is whatever we wish to define it to be.

This is, in fact, a huge problem with language. You speak in terms of what must follow regarding what constitutes a language. Yet all you are really doing is pulling the strings of how you decide to define these abstract terms.

If I define it this way then this follows. If I define it that way then that follows.

Do you see the circularity I'm trying to get at?

In that situation what constitutes understanding?

You're just building a house of cards with each card being based on the arbitrary definitions that you have accepted for your words or symbols.

Of course, you’ll probably say, “But they aren’t arbitrary! I’ve THOUGHT about them!” But that’s the whole point. The whole process of logical thought (especially in a realm so abstract as the concept of what constitutes language) is really nothing more than subjective viewpoints. You’re understanding in this case is nothing more than an understanding of your own symbolic definitions and what they mean to you.

Again, I’d like to refer to Richard Feynman, one of my most favorite thinkers.

"I think it is safe to say that no one understands quantum mechanics. Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, 'But how can it be like that?' because you will go down the drain into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that." - Dr. Richard P. Feynman

Think about what this man is saying.

This is the man who won the Noble Prize for his major contributions on QED, Quantum Electrodynamics.

But what is he saying here?

He saying, YES! We have a devised a language that describes the behavior of the quantum world. And it WORKS perfectly in every case we have ever applied it to.

However, it tells us NOTHING about what’s actually going on!

It’s just a house of cards of arbitrary definitions. If we choose to define things like this then we must conclude this. If we choose to define things like that then we must conclude that. Both conclusions make sense depending one which definitions we choose to use, yet the two conclusions are totally incompatible with each other (even though they give the same answers mathematically). In other words, we can choose to think in terms of particles and get our answer as particles, or we can choose to think in terms of waves and get our answer in waves. Yet, neither pictures accurately describes what’s actually going on.

Language is just our illusion of trying to understand the world. It’s not true understanding.

And here you are trying to make some sort of absolute claim about language itself.

I don’t mean to be hard to get along with. I’m just reflecting my cerebral reaction to all of this for whatever it’s worth.

I made the following cartoon just for fun.