I am reading through the thread once again, trying to ignore the many tempting tangents, and putting your comments together in one place. Through most of this thread, Creative, I was confident that by 'unspoken language', you meant 'silent, mental pre-verbalizations in a recognized human language, such as the person's native tongue'.

With that in mind, I strongly disagreed with what seemed to me to be the general theme of your words.

But if by 'language' you mean something far looser, more inclusive, more abstract - including the recognition of a feeling as feeling in relation to a memory, or two images and a wordless perception of causality, then I find I cannot disagree. There must be *some* kind of structure to our 'thoughts' or they are reduced a mere series of experiences. (Which, honestly, tangentially, I would consider as a valid definition of 'thought', but is clearly not the kind of thinking you are speaking of.)

Throughout your comments I am reminded of zen... but I'm trying not to go on tangents until I have a better sense of what you mean.

I think I was falling asleep (from mental fatigue, not boredom) last time, when i came to this and Abra's response:

And by this, you are not speaking of "the language of racoons," at all, are you?

Maybe you are speaking of something like: whatever mysterious internal mental system for organizing experiences that this one individual racoon may have?

<=== Simultaneously feels dumb for how long it took it to disentangle some of the meanings being expressed.... is still behind the curve, and still does not feel he's gotten to the bottom of Creative's message.


From what I've understood so far, it seems something like:

"Structured mental activity requires structure in one's mental activity. Only mental activities with a minimum level of structure qualify as 'thought'. 'Language' is whatever internal structure is used to allow that kind of mental activity."

I mean, its seems rather tautological to me. There must be more.

This is how it strikes me as well.

A sentence or statement in a language is usually defined as, and required to be, a complete thought.

So now to turn that definition around and suggest that every complete thought must then qualify as a sentence seems to be redundant since is this is how sentences got their definitions in the first place.

The only thing I would argue with this as an exacting analogy is that often times we can have thoughts that require many sentences to convey. In other words, a sentence may be required to be a complete thought, but a thought is not restricted to only being defined by a single sentence.

So in this sense I would argue that thoughts are different from language in that they are far richer than than language.

This just my thought, yet it took me a whole post to express this thought linquistically.

i prefer to think of language as spoken thought.

This page has been quite the unexpected surprise, based upon the history of this thread.

Thank you massage!

You are very close to presenting - for the very first time in this thread - an accurate translation of my own personal thoughts on this matter, and I want to say that I sincerely and deeply appreciate your empathetic flexibility and continued persistence despite your first impression.

I intend to continue this, although - once again - I am short on time and long on thought.

If you would, could you further develop the meaning behind your use of the term tautological, because as you most likely are aware, there are several sets of presuppositional elements which differ tremendously depending on the sense in which the term is being used.

In my everyday speech (ie, words I color in my own way), I call that 'intellectual understanding,' or sometimes 'verbal understanding,' and I say it in a disparaging way. In my exerience, the 'real' understanding of something, be it a person or a mathematical concept or a poem, arises from a non-verbal portion of my mind. For other kinds of 'understanding,' I abuse the words: 'visceral understanding,' or 'true understanding' or 'perceiving' or 'experiencing' or 'knowing'.

Now, it may be those 'non-verbal' portions of my mind are using the language-like 'tagging system' as Bushido designates it, or a full blown non-verbal 'language' of my own inner creation, this point seems too subtle for me to argue right now.




I agree with most of what Abra says in this thread, and I do believe that language has immense value! I didn't see his writings as an attempt to deny that language has great value, only to express some of its limitations and assert the value of 'that which is not structured human language'.




This is statement about two things: (a) The medium we are using and (b) your world view, and the means by which you allow it to evolve. I don't see it as a statement about the language-dependence of Abra's view. (His claims maybe, but his claims are a shadow of his view.)

I have known people to come to conclusions like Abra's as a consequence the following means: Consistent and regular practice of seated meditation. Extensive time alone in the wilderness. The use of mushrooms. Extensive fasting. The practice of martial arts.

I have no point in saying these things, except to respond to "Show me exactly how you intend to show this without using some form of language."

I still feel very confused.



I was being sloppy... more in a bit

Regarding tautological, I didn't mean that it was in fact any kind of true tautology, only that it strikes me 'tautological'

When I read "thought is unspoken language", I get the impression that a very strong, specific, meaningful, and significant statement is being made about the true nature of our mental activities, and the relationship between the sum of our mental activities and human language.

(As yet another tangent (already partly addressed), there is a lot that can be said, and debated, in that arena.)

But when I read "Structured mental activity requires structure in one's mental activity. " I get the impression of... obviousness. I don't know whether its truly a tautology, it seems at least self evident. Then we add two *chosen* definitions, and arrive at the conclusion "thought is unspoken language."

I understand that there are many closely related and important points to me made - about the value human language, the importance of structure in mental activity, etc, but the actual claim that 'thought is unspoken language' seems, from my current vantage point, to be no more meaningful than "Structured mental activity requires structure in one's mental activity."

I'm not sure if I'm answering the question.

Let me know what you think about this vague parallel guys.

First I think its important to take note of examples.
I think any person with the ability to communicate verbally would agree that any spoken means of communication is language.
But most would also agree that a specific set of gestures can be language: sign language.
I would imagine that most would agree that while mannerisms and most gestures are very expressive they are note necessarily language.

First lets at least see if we all here can agree on that? If not why?

So what is the distinction between sets of gestures that are merely expressive vs actual language?

I think most of us would at first focus on the capability of complexity.

So to me it does seem as if there is a boundary here somewhere we can establish between intuitive, or subconscious thought and conscious and purposeful thought.

Similar to the boundary of subconscious facial and hand gestures and sign language.

I sense, through my own understanding of things written here, that it is necessary to be more precise when developing the meaning behind my chosen expressions.

Much earlier I recognized a few inconsistencies in the train of thought I had been presenting. My apologies for that, this was being done on-the-fly. As massage has previously mentioned of his own writing, there also exists some sloppiness within my own. I will correct as necessary in the future rather than regressing to those incorrect developmental 'axioms' at this time. With that being said...

This entire thought exercise has been spurred by my own philosophical construct of the mind - which happens to be quite Jungian minus the mystical - in addition to the recent exposure to a scientifically research-backed series of books/teaching tools entitled 'Habits of Mind'. This series is being formally introduced to the public school system in the area that I live in. The purpose of which is an attempt to improve the way that the staff teaches the students(and themselves) to mentally engage, not only in the classroom, but in life - by expanding thought through the exposure and consistent use of terminology that promotes and reinforces critical thinking skills and open-mindedness. The affects that the introduction of this series has on the human mind highlights the fundamental connection between how a human thinks and the shared language being used to not only express those thoughts, but to actually develop that type of thinking habit. It establishes, consequently, substantial warrant to hold thought equal to a form of unspoken language.

A person's spoken/written vocabulary is the direct reflection of how that person contemplates the manner by which they intend to express their own thoughts to another in an understandable and coherent way. If those thoughts represent things not yet contained within the framework of a common language, then one must either acquire the ability to translate that into a more common form necessary for effective communication, or teach another a new language.

Eastern thinking purposefully leaves some things un-named and unsaid. This is done in an attempt to avoid the containment of a thing being defined. However, that kind of understanding - recognition and value of leaving a thing undefined - is done so through exacting measures. It is only through a thorough understanding of the language game that that which goes un-named, has an identity, albeit not as a clear and concise symbol which represents certain characteristics, but as an understanding of the fact that strict definitions create boundaries by which understanding must be contained.

The philosophical issue(s) that the OP presents revolves around exactly what each of us consider to be thought and language.

Massage wrote...



Now I understand what was meant.

I believe the question should be raised...

Does thought equal 'structured mental activity'? Moreover, does my proposition 'Thought is unspoken language' necessitate this conclusion?

Massage wrote...



The attribute of structure seems to be a possible source of confusion here. If by structure it is meant that there exists a consciously accessible mental framework that contains memory and metacognition - which would be necessary for any form of self-reflection(awareness), then I would disagree with this as a necessary requirement for thought. This necessitates the conclusion that only creatures capable of self-awareness are capable of thought. I find no substantiation which warrants reason to believe that.

If by structure it is meant that there exists some form of representational understanding between the content of current sensory perception and an ingrained memory, without invoking the need for self-awareness or voluntary accessibility of that memory by will alone, then I would agree that this could be considered a rudimentary form of conscious thought, as fleeting as it may be. This would necessitate the acknowledgement of an unconscious form of language which has no need for communication nor a continued conscious existence. Such a thing, if it is not instinct alone, must have been formed through conscious experience. Conscious experience births unconscious content.

Conscious thought requires a current awareness of immediate surroundings, and the ability to identify with the objects of perception in some way.

I once learned just a small amount of Italian and spoke only a few things, but there were surprising times when reaching for an expression of a feeling, instead of thinking in English, I found an Italian expression to be more suited to the feeling and I could not express that same feeling in English.

Each language is unique and each word or phrase expresses something unique.

Sign language is language. This being so, then gestures must be language also, even though they are not official but implied.

Roll your eyes up and over when someone makes a ridiculous suggestion. We all know what that means.

Shrug you shoulders. Yes, we know what that means.

I was once approached by a man who did not speak a single word of English. He reached for my hand and looked into my eyes and raised his eyebrows (twice) and grinned. Yes I knew what that meant. There was no mistake.

Language does not require spoken words.

Earlier question posed by myself...



This is actually a bit misleading...

I can envision a creature without any form of self-awareness being conscious and responding to sensory perception with a deliberate and known expectation of that response. I can also envision the same without the creature having a conscious memory of past experience. That is not to say that no memory exists, it is to say that a creature can have memory without being able to consciously access it just because it wants to.

The above question should have replaced the term thought with the phrase conscious thought. It also need not imply deliberate intent with expectation of a known or the possibility of a set of known outcomes.

So the answer to the above question - as it was written - would be yes, because of the fact that thought can exist without the subject doing the thinking actually knowing that it is.




Another comment by myself in response to James' attempts to add another perspective...



This is a tough one to develop. Massage mentioned a 'visceral understanding' which I believe falls under the umbrella of intuition. The term intuition is so extremely varied in it's regular use, meaning exactly what it represents, that I fear commenting further will increase the liklihood of addressing the wrong sense of how it has been meant to be understood.



I want to completely abandon the earlier idea that natural curiosity is somehow entirely responsible for the birth of language... that is wrongly put.


James wrote earlier, and I would like to respond again...



In the first response given, I focused upon our shared language which probably did not add clarity to my own position, which for whatever reason, was misunderstood. I can think of a much better way to respond to this at this point in time.

James,

I agree that language is not required for thought to exist. Indeed, I have been claiming that language is a product of thought not the other way around. That is clear, however - in the sense that I understand it - language itself begins to register observation as a memory within the perceiver through whatever sense of understanding that the creature has of that experience.

More later...

Ah! Sweet! Now I feel I understand a bit more (relatively speaking) of where you are coming from, what these words mean for you, why you would like for those meanings to be 'more valid.'

In the context of: A set of human beings (teachers) seeking to improve (in the sense of critical thinking skills) the way that another set of human beings (students) use their minds - well of course, in that context, we get best results by using the word 'thought' to mean only certain kinds of activities of mind - those kinds of mental activities that are improved when one improves their 'critical thinking skills'. That is a very narrow subset of 'all possible ways to use one's mind', but its a critical subset, particularly in academics (and also many areas of everyday life). And language - actual human language (not just the personal internal language) shapes (and is shaped by) those kinds of mental activities. Further, awareness of that interplay is important to improving one's "critical thinking".

I'm pleased to see this in the school system, even if, as is often the case in school, foolishly oversimplifying dogmatic assertions being made about how 'this IS thought, the only kind of thought there is.'

The teaching tools "Habits of Mind" are trying, I suppose, to solve a PRACTICAL problem: How can we get students to improve their critical thinking skills? That are not inquiring into 'the true nature of mind', nor should they. They look at the problem, the goal, and take existing knowledge and apply it as best they can.

If I wanted to have wooden frame for a building constructed, I'd hire a carpenter, not a botanist, nor a pair who want to argue about evolution vs creation of trees. When it comes time to paint, maybe I'd want an artistically capable person to look at sample colors, not someone who wants to spend the whole day asking "What is the true nature of our perception of color?"

The pursuit of truth can interfere with the act of 'getting things done', and the people who present the argument that thought is unspoken language SHOULD direct their attention to 'getting things done' and not 'the true nature of the mind.'

Keep in mind, Creative, that the creators of those tools are also trying to SELL the methods to the reader. I don't mean financially sell, but to get the reader personally invested in believing that these methods are 'good methods'. This is a kind of marketing. What do all marketing people do when they want to convince a reader of something?




True, true, in the limited context of teaching others to improve their critical thinking skills, I think I basically agree with most of what you say.




I'm not sure what you mean by 'containment', and I'm not sure there is such a thing as 'eastern thinking', but I'd say that many of those who purposefully leave some things un-named may do so to prevent the error of mistaking the use of language with understanding.




This, and the insistence on those two definitions, make even more sense to me in the context of teaching students to use critical thinking skills.



No. Those are just tokens. I'm trying to understand your real meaning, and it seemed to me that this is how you were using the words.



By itself, the phrase 'thought is unspoken language' is just a collection of letters, its not a proposition, and it doesn't necessitate very much.

To the limited degree to which I understand your theme in this thread, and my best understanding of what you mean by that phrase, it appears to me that you are limiting the word thought to apply to a sub-domain of mental activity, and that its a domain which has a level of structure.

Fair enough. Tangentially, it seems like any person could disagree with you (and me) and choose to insist that this is the only valid, useful definition of thought, and that any other thing called 'thought' isn't really thought. Just sayin'.




Well, I'm not convinced that this definitely, REQUIRES an unconscious form of language, I just choose not to argue about it because its too subtle a point to argue. Otherwise, I don't disagree with your statement.

Actually, I meant 'structure' in the loosest (and also sloppiest) way possible, but your expansion has made the statement into something more meaningful.

Falls, or is swept?

The only reason I can see to place it under 'intuition' is that it makes for a nice, neat, categorization of things. Here is the box for conscious, rational thought (which is often irrational). Here is the box for 'intuition'. (And here is the box for 'insanity'.)

Sometimes labels aid in understanding, sometimes they interfere with understanding.

"Is thought the unspoken language?"

I don't know...let me think about this!

Bushido wrote:



JB wrote:


Bushido wrote:


I don't know. I would say that human beings have (at least) three levels of 'language' in nonverbal communication - a genetically influenced one (I seem to remember that a few aspects of body language are universal), one influence by culture, and one that develops within a personal relationship. This is ONE of the means by which people 'read' others peoples minds, and why more perceptive people are more capable, and why such 'mind reading' is more often found within people most familiar with each other. I've experiences some very specific thoughts being expressed non-verbally.

As for complexity - the conversations between 3 years olds are not complex, but its language, yes? I've had more complex conversations through personal body language than the average conversation that three year olds have. Could I consider it a language?




Well, I agree that there is a boundary or difference of some sort - one of kind, I'm just not sure its one of degree.

I will definitely give you that the majority of adult signers regularly communicate more complex thoughts than the majority of adult people do using body language. But what about the geniuses (in body language)?

The strongest argument I can see for calling ASL a language, and body language not, has to do with formalization. There are reference texts for ASL, many people learn ASL deliberately, its possible to be 'wrong' in one's use of ASL, etc.