Well the only reason I bring up the idea is for us to get a better understanding, at least for the purposes of this conversation, to the exact definition of language.

Sometimes, when I try to figure something out I have not the words to tell how I came to the conclusion.
This could be because my train of thoughts went round so many corners, but is it not also possible that I didn't think in actual words or language?

...what if a person was blind and deaf..would they not dream..

Yea I think this thread is long past the notion that a person needs any kind of official, or formal language: English, Spanish, Russian ect to think.

--The real question here is what is language.

What are the fundamental properties that make a language a language?
What properties if missing would making something 'not a language'?

I think many of us have come to understand we are speaking about the same thing, but some of us are not comfortable with using the word language.

Oh man, I read through most of this, my head is killing me.

And I am still not on top of it yet.

Carry on great minds for maybe I will grasp it all one day.

I think the introduction of the word “language” in the OP is the ‘confounding’ factor in this thread. As Abra pointed out and others have proved, language is a tool, constructed by humans, as a means by which to communicate with each other. It can take the form of almost any symbolic representation, depending on the sense capabilities of any given individual.

Through language ideas can be shared. Once communicated, the idea becomes linked to the symbolic representation with which it was shared. The particular way in which the individual categorizes communicated ideas, takes place and many new pieces of information have now been stored in memory and may appear as the individual ‘thinks’.

But is the communication process necessary for thought to take place?
If communication is not necessary for thought to occur then how would it take place.

So let’s conduct a mental experiment. First let’s try to think of all the ways in which humans communicate. This has pretty much been covered within this thread. Verbal expression, body language, sign language, written language, Braille for the blind, facial expression. Image a human being, a social creatures who might have had no (or extremely minimal) experience with human communication. I can only think of the feral children, those children who had developed either in the wild or in some rare cases, minimally cared for while left alone in a room most of their life.

In all known (legitimate) cases, these children never developed thought processes which we might call human – instead they relied on instinct. Their instincts became highly developed and what they learned came from observation of other animals. They could smell rain and knew to take cover, was that a thought process – a consciously considered relational connection or was it merely instinct? Again in all known cases the children were never capable of developing communication beyond the level of some higher primates and most did not live long after being found.

So what does this say? To me it says that certain portions of the brain require specific stimulation in order to function at their fullest potential. So the ability to develop critical thinking skills, which require a high level of abstract connections, would not be possible without some form of human communication – which Abra, Bushi, Mass, and myself have already stated is a man-made construct we call language.

Therefore, language is required to develop the brain activity which promotes thought. NOW MOVING ON: SEE NEXT POST.

When and how do we think? First of all, we don’t always choose the thoughts that come into our consciousness. For example, I might be contemplating a problem, reviewing statistics, reading some research, trying to solve the problem, unable to solve it, I go to sleep – suddenly I wake up with a thought, maybe it’s a picture, maybe a math solution, or just a word and I have the answer to my problem. The same thing happens when we suddenly have an insightful moment. We were not even aware of that thought until it transpired, we may have been going in a different direction but something in the brain was triggered.

This is not language – but it might the systematic way in which normal brains function. We have a problem, we have it in our working memory (consciousness), but somewhere behind the conscious a slide show is being presented of every symbolic concept we have ever been exposed to. Because this goes on ALL THE TIME, the brain never stops functioning, we are desensitized to it and it just keeps flashing like a giant card catalog all the pieces in every category in an attempt to find a solution. Suddenly we experience that moment we call insight, and it is insight for we have consciously made a connection between a relevant piece of information (a flash card) and the problem we are contemplating.

This is the unspoken language of the brain – but it does require humanly communicated symbolic representations (and practice) to be effective.

Sorry I forgot to form a conclusion.

Instinct is not a thought language - in most cases it is a physiological reaction to a situation that is either part of a genetic code (survival mechanism) or previously experienced condition which has heightened awareness of environmental stimuli and we simply respond. No thought was actually given.

By the way, ants and bees and many creatures communicate through chemicals - which are functionally controlled by instinct. No thought processes.

In the end, Creative, the brain can only THINK if it is provided with stimuli (information) and structured process of memory development, and these things, as far as my mental experiment goes, can only occur though human communication, specifically man-made language.

POST SCRIPT
If the brain is always functioning, is it communicating with us at a conscious leve that we have become desensitized to? Could this be a sort of thought language? Still when we bring a thought into consciousness it must have a symbolic representation of some sort in order for us to communicate it (even to ourselves).

Great Post Di.

Its always so natural and yet mysterious when a thought pops up on the stage of consciousness to solve a pestering problem.

The mind is like a theater, the consciousness is what happens on stage, but someone must be backstage to setup between scenes . . .

Who is that man behind the curtain?

Fabulour analagy, much better than my own, I always use too many words.

The man behind the curtain is a great and powerful wizard, but pay no attention to him - he'll let you know when something is important.

Di,

Your post on feral children leads me to wonder if the 'insightful' non-verbal modes of mental activity which Abra and I seem to be so fond of, are only possible in humans who have learned language. (The implications of which may be contrary to my theme in this thread, but is very interesting.)

Well, I agree that the quality of mental activity for feral humans and nonhuman animals is radically different than normal humans, but I'm not sure I agree with this labeling. Grabbing random definition for instinct: "An inborn pattern of behavior that is characteristic of a species and is often a response to specific environmental stimuli" Surely these exist, but are they only things which determine animal (and feral human) responses? (On the one hand, even in normal humans, the genetic code and physiological reactions play a role in our 'thinking' and our responses.)

"Still when we bring a thought into consciousness it must have a symbolic representation of some sort in order for us to communicate it (even to ourselves)."

If I feel it, without labels or words, does that feeling qualify as a 'symbolic representation' ?

Interesting additions Di...



Massage,

Earlier, in your response regarding 'Habits of Mind', you did something that I myself have been guilty of - even in this very thread. My friend, the intent of the maker is irrelevent. The success of the concept itself highlights the interdependency of language, thought, and understanding. It shows very clearly that the language one uses affects not only how one thinks, but also hardwires the brain itself also directly affecting how one frames experience.

That is understanding.

What is thought without understanding?

And what is it that you think I did? You seem to be implying that I've evaluated the merit of an actual, clearly stated idea based on my opinions of the apparent intention of the person creating the idea, and I did no such thing.

I did, however, evaluate the merit of the applicability of an idea to a domain, based on new information about about certain peoples' idea of what would make for a good domain of application. Thats an entirely different matter. It really is a good idea to ignore relativity theory and stick to Newtonian mechanics only when, say, designing a robot to shoot pool.

AND, I presumed a bit of the context in which you were originally (before even starting this thread) considering the words used to expressed the idea.



Which concept, exactly?

You missed the point through deflection of thought, as I myself did earlier with James. If it matters at all, that series played no role whatsoever in my thinking on this matter until very recently, even then it merely supports what I have already believed to be the case.

I would rather not get sidetracked with differences regarding what I think you meant by the terminology being used... I know that I feel different though, especially having been earlier mistaken regarding those things.

The idea that introducing flexibility in language during formative years simultaneously creates an exact corresponding flexibility in thought. The idea that the language one uses corresponds exactly with how one frames experience... how one understands that which is experienced.

Understanding is necessarily dependent upon language. Thought cannot exist without understanding... or should I say, what is thought without understanding?

Which point, exactly?



Yes, yes, of course, you are not so naive as to swallow hook line and sinker such a fundamental aspect of one's worldview based on one publisher's collection of media. But most people - even the most open minded people - often have a fondness for writings which bolster their existing worldview.



Well, I'd certainly like to know which point it is that you think I missed. If you are suggesting I 'changed the topic', thats okay, from my point of view there are many dozens of topics being interwoven here, and the ones I value may not be the ones that you value. I also may not value the point I supposedly missed, but I'd like to know whether I actually missed it.



I'm not clear on what is being referred to by 'those things,' (I'm inclined to make assumptions based on paragraph groupings, but would rather not.)

>>>>>>> <<<<<<<

And then...

>>>>>>> <<<<<<<

Oooops!!!

Language is representational understanding.

What is thought, other than a reflection of this?