Thought is pre-language Our thoughts are not in language

[boagie]

The first language is that of image, it is the language of the subconscious, of dream, of myth, and of creative thought. language of the spoken word is communication, the language of image is the language of the understanding, the language of the body.

[soullight]

Thoughts are impulses of information, which purveys an intuitive understanding about something or someone. This is an internal lauguage of the mind, which has the capacity to communicate with the dominating thought or feeling in order to make connections for the purpose of minipulating, and so, shaping reality. Words are merely lables, which facilitate our ability to organize thoughts in sequence, according to what we are aspiring to achieve. Words are simply sounds to help meld thoughts together to complete a particular purpose. We associate these words with thoughts to enjender an action. This is my view, I might be wrong. I'm quite open to correction.

[Zetetic11235]

It is all about context, the enviroment which surrounds you that charges the words with meaning. Semantics is difficult to determine without the exact same context as the writer or speaker. Many ideas can be viewed from very many more perspectives and the meaning behind these ideas is the summed perspectives that the expressor has considered and how he has drawn upon other experiences to weigh the perspectives and determine the value of each of them to form his conclusions which are then used to make decisions. This is how it seems to me that words are given meaning and then applied.
Not sure about any of you, but I often feel somthing before I translate it into words, I often have to translate physical feelings and visual mental images into words. In other words; I will often know that i have the answer to somthing before I can put words to it or I might see a visual answer to somthing before I have it translated into the correct words or symbols.

[mythster]

Originally Posted by Zetetic11235

It is all about context, the enviroment which surrounds you that charges the words with meaning. Semantics is difficult to determine without the exact same context as the writer or speaker. Many ideas can be viewed from very many more perspectives and the meaning behind these ideas is the summed perspectives that the expressor has considered and how he has drawn upon other experiences to weigh the perspectives and determine the value of each of them to form his conclusions which are then used to make decisions. This is how it seems to me that words are given meaning and then applied.
Not sure about any of you, but I often feel somthing before I translate it into words, I often have to translate physical feelings and visual mental images into words. In other words; I will often know that i have the answer to somthing before I can put words to it or I might see a visual answer to somthing before I have it translated into the correct words or symbols.

What do you "feel"?
Is it a tickling sensation in your nose or a burning sensation in the souls of your feet? Forgive me if that seems facetious but I honestly can not imagine thought without words (or some reasonable facsimile thereof). I did have a good friend who was a very talented painter albeit never recognized who inisisted that he thought in visual images and insisted he never thought "words at all" Let's suppose, that you or someone like you experiences these non-verbal thoughts. How do you communicate these to others and if you do, how do you know that your translation expresses the "true meaning"
I could imagine that our language deprived pre-historic ancestors might have experienced some kinds of brain activity in the cortex but were the experiences "thought" or merely impressions or simple reactions to stumuli?

[FatalMuse]

Originally Posted by Quatl

however he could still understand "I am sad"

If the human were to say to the alian "I am sad", and the alien has a literal understanding of langauge, he would respond along the lines of: "I'm pleased to meet you, Sad."

If the human were to say "I am feeling sad" I think the only deduction that the alien could make is "Sad is a feeling that this human is experiencing" but without grasping what it means - unless the alien observes multiple humans feeling sad. He still won't know what it is to feel sad, but he will understand that humans experience this emotion and probably be able to indentify it by symptons and reactions.

I'm of the belief that language is thought. You can sense things without langauge, but I don't believe you can think about them. I think thought & language are synchronous.

[Quatl]

Originally Posted by FatalMuse

I'm of the belief that language is thought. You can sense things without langauge, but I don't believe you can think about them. I think thought & language are synchronous.

Then how is it that I sometimes feel unable to articulate a thought that I'm having?

[FatalMuse]

Originally Posted by Quatl

Then how is it that I sometimes feel unable to articulate a thought that I'm having?

I think feel is the key word there. In my opinion, it's sense-data that you feel you should be expanding on but haven't developed into thought yet.

I also find it a difficult question because I obviously can't ask you for an example.

"What thought are you having trouble expressing?"
"Well, you see... that's the problem.."

Thoughts should be communicable, otherwise they're sensations.

If one has a thought they can't express, then it can always be questioned whether this thought exists at all. All you can express is the inability to exrpess the thought, which would make it seem more like a personal emotion rather than a thought.

I'm quickly realising I'm completely unqualified to discuss this topic .

[paulhanke]

... I recall reading about an epileptic whose language center would be temporarily affected by his seizures (maybe it was in one of Ramachandran's books) ... for a short time after a mild seizure, he would completely lose his language capabilities - he couldn't speak, read, write, or even think in language ... yet he was completely aware of himself and his surroundings, could function socially, and had full recall after language returned to him ... during these episodes he would communicate with facial expression, gesticulation, and mime ... now if only I could remember where I read that ...

[paulhanke]

... found it - Merlin Donald, "The Origins of the Modern Mind" ...

... and he kept a portable radio handy, in order to periodically test his ability to comprehend what he heard on it. In other words, he was fully conscious and able to cope with the situation, despite the absence of language. Moreover, he had full recall of the episode later.

The extent to which he retained the ability to cope with practical challenges was quite remarkable. One episode, while he was traveling in Switzerland, was particularly striking. He found himself at the peak of one of his seizures as he arrived at his destination, a town he had never seen before. He took his baggage and managed to disembark. Although he could not read or speak, he managed to find a hotel and show his medic-alert bracelet to the concierge, only to be sent away. He then found another hotel, received a more sympathetic reception, communicated by mime, and was given a room. He was able to execute various procedures which formed a framework for linguistic operations; for example, he was able to point out to the desk clerk where in his passport to find the information required to fill out his registration slip, while not being able to read it himself. ...

A number of important conclusions can be drawn from this case. First, despite the complete absence of language, internal or external, (he) was able to cope in ways that are uniquely human. He was capable of coherent thought, able to recognize music, voices, and faces, and the use of objects and places. His spatial orientation and basic mechanical intelligence were intact. His episodic memory for the events of his seizures was accurate ...

Finally, both gestural ability and practical knowledge were intact. He could imitate or reproduce on demand a wide variety of gestures. He could tune a radio, operate an elevator, and, as the Switzerland episode shows, assess and respond appropriately to a social situation of some complexity. All of this was achieved in the absence of visual or oral language, and in the absence of internal speech as well. In his own retrospective account, he claimed that he could not "find the words" for things and events. Nevertheless, he could think about them coherently, deal with them appropriately, and remember them later.

[Quatl]

@FatalMuse: I think maybe your proposed separation of "sensation" and "thought" could use some deeper evaluation. I'm not sure it holds water. Can sensation (without thought) reveal connections or functional understanding of the system being observed?

If not what I'm describing is not sensation under your definition. I have an experience fairly often, where after working on a problem for a long time, I feel a sudden revelation, where the answer floods my consciousness apparently from nowhere. Initially I can't even articulate this answer to myself, it takes mental effort to extract the thought into a verbal form that I can write down and then use to address the problem in the real world.

Even before I can articulate it though I do "know" the answer, and I am already processing it's consequences, checking the results of the proposition against other information I know for example. That is I am using knowledge and getting true answers without using linguistic thought methods.

A related phenomena happens when I am writing code. When the program becomes too complicated to internally articulate my mind switches to a non verbal mode of understanding, where I literally feel (it is like imagining a physical touch sensation) the interconnections between the various parts of the program's structure. Usually during these moments my mind's voice is completely silent; but after a while the answers I need begin to form, at first abstractly as a sensational experience, and then more slowly translation into linguistic structures begins and I can resume writing code.

The work that I arrive at this way is the most elegant code I ever produce. It is generally more bountiful (as assessed by other programmers too) faster and "cleaner" than code produced via the usual linguistic pounding away method.

@paulhanke: That is a very interesting account.