Thought is pre-language Our thoughts are not in language

[Aedes]

Anthropologically language and thought probably co-evolved.

But the real question philosophically is the following:

Which can exist without the other?

Language cannot exist without thought. There is no way. But thought can indeed exist without language.

How complex could thoughts be without language? Well, if you took a potential brilliant philosophical genius at infancy, raised him in a room with no features, never let him interact with other humans, never taught him a language, and he survived to adulthood, what could he think? Could he ever generate complex thoughts? Could he understand anything more than the most basic cause and effect relationships?

The thing is that our thoughts are trained and nurtured by interaction with others, chiefly our parents and siblings, but also in school. And language (whether spoken or Braille or sign language or whatever) is the common currency of that growth process.

[NeitherExtreme]

Interesting topic! I'll be interested to hear what some others think. I've wondered about this idea before, and I came to the conclusion that without language, we would be extremely limited in our ability to organize any complex thoughts. We could think in terms of pictures, feelings (touch), smells/tastes, and emotions... I've thought it would be interesting to learn from someone like Helen Keller what it had been like to live without language, and in her specific case, without sight.

[Doobah47]

Originally Posted by Aedes

Anthropologically language and thought probably co-evolved.

Somehow I disagree with that, I think forms of language predated metaphysical thought; that there were sounds made before people learnt to think more deeply than simply imagining reality. Surely dreams are the key to deciding when thought and subconscious mechanisms began.

How complex could thoughts be without language? Well, if you took a potential brilliant philosophical genius at infancy, raised him in a room with no features, never let him interact with other humans, never taught him a language, and he survived to adulthood, what could he think? Could he ever generate complex thoughts? Could he understand anything more than the most basic cause and effect relationships?

The thing is that our thoughts are trained and nurtured by interaction with others, chiefly our parents and siblings, but also in school. And language (whether spoken or Braille or sign language or whatever) is the common currency of that growth process.

I personally believe that our innermost thoughts are ineffable, far too abstract and metamorphic to be expressed in a linear fashion. I also believe that language is an outlet for human's expression, one which negates the expression of violence. Often violence occurs when the ineffable thought behind an expression is too much for the individual. So what I'm saying is that use of language allows us to express rather than repress, which benefits the reduction of primal instincts.

[GoshisDead]

Assuming a structured rule governed system of thought/cognition, communicated or not, can be argued to be language. Thought of any kind would be done in a language even pictoral thinking is representational and holds semantic properties. To not be considered a language would make all thought to chaotic to express in an external language, sort of like an analogy between Microsoft word using binary but we read whatever it produces.

[Quatl]

Originally Posted by GoshisDead

Assuming a structured rule governed system of thought/cognition, communicated or not, can be argued to be language. Thought of any kind would be done in a language even pictoral thinking is representational and holds semantic properties. To not be considered a language would make all thought to chaotic to express in an external language, sort of like an analogy between Microsoft word using binary but we read whatever it produces.

This doesn't quite work for me.

Language does not hold semantic properties. Language does hold syntactic properties. Semantics is something that happens only in the interpreters of language, that is speakers and listeners.

More generally I think the distinction between symbol and meaning is an important one.

Ordered syntax symbolisms are only one of the tools we use internally.

[GoshisDead]

Syntax is just as subject to interpretation as semantics, they do not separate, if you want to throw "Colorless Green Ideas" out as a counter all that does is show that semantics and syntax aren't the same operation, however "green sleep colorless ideas furiously" is subject to syntactic interpretation, the same way as if i added nonsense words into a syntactically sound sentence structure.

[Quatl]

I didn't mean syntax within a single sentence, which is certainly as you say.

If you look at a particular language as used in a book say, there is information about syntax contained in the structure of the word patterns themselves. This is possible even if you don't know the meaning of the words at all. You can for example determine that certain phrase patterns are reused with different symbols. Although there are some syntactical rules that rely on the meanings of the words you can determine the patterns even if you know nothing of meaning.

This doesn't appear to me to be true for semantics.

There is a reason that MS-Word can somewhat check your grammar, but can't offer suggestions to improve semantic clarity. Semantics is a much more difficult engineering problem than syntax.

I'm not saying it is impossible that Word (or other software) may someday do this to one degree or another, just that it's not the same kind of problem. Semantics requires something more than just the structure of the words, what more it requires I don't know exactly. If I did I'd be very wealthy, very soon

[de Silentio]

I'm not saying it is impossible that Word (or other software) may someday do this to one degree or another, just that it's not the same kind of problem. Semantics requires something more than just the structure of the words, what more it requires I don't know exactly. If I did I'd be very wealthy, very soon

Does semantics require a subjective, emotional connection to the words? Perhaps that is a major difference between semantics and syntax. While a sentence can be properly written or spoken (syntax), what it means go far beyond the words themselves. Although, when we talk about meaning and emotional connections, I think we inevitably spiral into subjective translations, and then we need to figure out how each subjective translation interrelates

[Quatl]

Originally Posted by de Silentio

Does semantics require a subjective, emotional connection to the words? Perhaps that is a major difference between semantics and syntax. While a sentence can be properly written or spoken (syntax), what it means go far beyond the words themselves. Although, when we talk about meaning and emotional connections, I think we inevitably spiral into subjective translations, and then we need to figure out how each subjective translation interrelates

Well The emotive contents and conotations of various words and statements is important to understanding much of what we say primarily because what we feel is very important to us. I imagine an alien with different emotions could possibly exist and would have great difficulty understanding what we mean, while still understanding what we "said." Now that I think about it that happens all the time between us anyhow

[de Silentio]

I imagine an alien with different emotions could possibly exist and would have great difficulty understanding what we mean, while still understanding what we "said."

How do you define: "What we 'said'"?

How can a being understand what I am saying without understanding what I mean?