Most Thought is NOT in Linguistic Form

[coberst]

Most Thought is NOT in Linguistic Form

Mammals evolved on this planet about 200 million years ago. One type of mammal, the hominid, began using audible signals to convey meaning about 4 million years ago. Language, as we comprehend that word, began much less than 4 million years ago.

What is thought? The dictionary gives us various definitions of thought; I would guess that it is accurate to say that the actions of neural networks that control our sensorimotor actions can be regarded as thought. In other words, such things as memory, control of movements, and processing of sense inputs are all a process of thinking. Thinking produces thoughts. Thinking goes on all the time even while we sleep.

I guess that we will agree that all mammals had to have the ability to think. This leads to the conclusion that thinking was been happening on this planet at least 200 million years before human language existed on this planet.

Those individuals who accept the science of evolution must then conclude that humans may think in linguistic forms some small percentage of the time but that most thought is not in linguistic form.

“It is the rule of thumb among cognitive scientists that unconscious thought is 95 percent of all thought—and that may be a serious underestimates.”

What does all this mean to you? It means that most of the things that you think are true about thinking are pure non-sense. This also applies to many of the things we all believe that are based upon the philosophical attitudes that fills our life are likewise pure non-sense.

How can we overcome this avalanche of pure nonsense that we learn from our culture via social osmosis?

Quotes from “Philosophy in the Flesh”—Lakoff and Johnson

[Coggeh]

Wow , you don't know how long I've been thinking this around in my head ..how do animals think without words .. in that sense ... Cheers for the post :)

[scarletghoul]

Well yeah, that goes without saying (heh), if we thought every thought in linguistic form then we would go crazy because of all the thoughts. linguistic form I think is probably a way of communicating thoughts to ourselves. They are the only thoughts that we are really aware of. Maybe the rest of the mind is on a differant level, and only a select few thoughts are passed to the higher level as linguistic thoughts ... but anyway that is another theory that I am not sure of

anyway, answer to your question is to try and think more and analyze more of what is going on around you, so that much of what is absorbed in the 'social osmosis' is instead inputted through concious linguistic thoughts.

[Potemkin]

Hi there. Firstly, I think "thought" is only thought when it is conscious. Any brain activity that happens on an unconscious level would be instinct.

It is not "accurate to say that the action of neural networks that control our sensorimotor (?!) actions can be regarded as thought." An ant is able to move around. Would you say the ant is "thinking" and deciding where it should go, or is it following pheromone trails laid out by other ants by instinct? When an animal winces and pulls back after touching a flame, it isn't thinking, it is instinctually reacting.

Second, even if what you say is accurate, it doesn't follow that Philosophy is nonsense or even "what we think is true about thinking" is nonsense. Obviously, Philosophy concerns itself with the conscious mind.

Thirdly, couldn't it be argued that if language is a fairly new evolutionary development, that would make it more important to our survival? Obviously, natural selection preferred people that could communicate most efficiency, and those that were able to do so were able to survive better, leading to those with the ability for "language" to multiply and thrive.

And what about other animals that seem to have rather complex language, like whales and dolphins?

What the original poster seems to be hinting at is an advocation of irrationalism -- a cornerstone of the primitivist mindset which anarchist-communists, communists, and all those that believe in class struggle and liberatory science and technology should reject.

Coberst: you might want to read Zerzan's work on this subject to strengthen your arguments.

[ernie]

As others hinted at, it would be more interesting to know what percentage of our reasoning is linguistic. I'd be surprised if it wasn't almost all of it.

[Drace]

I'm not sure what you are saying here.
Isn't all thought not in linguistic form? What is linguistic form? What do you mean by nonsense?


thinking was been happening

:laugh:

[coberst]

As others hinted at, it would be more interesting to know what percentage of our reasoning is linguistic. I'd be surprised if it wasn't almost all of it.

SGCS (Second Generation Cognitive Science) informs us that more than 95% of all thought is unconscious. Extrapolating from this I would guess that less than 3% of all thoughts is in linguistic form.

Cognitive science, as delineated in “Philosophy in the Flesh” by Lakoff and Johnson, presents a new paradigm for cognitive science. This new paradigm might be called the “conceptual metaphor” paradigm. The theory is that experiences form into concepts and some of these concepts are called “primary metaphors”. These ‘primary metaphors’ are often unconsciously mapped from the originating mental space onto another mental space that is a subjective concept, i.e. abstract concept.

Physical experiences of all kinds lead to conceptual metaphors from which perhaps hundreds of ‘primary metaphors’, which are neural structures resulting from sensorimotor experiences, are created. These primary metaphors provide the ‘seed bed’ for the judgments and subjective experiences in life. “Conceptual metaphor is pervasive in both thought and language.” It is hard to think of a common subjective experience that is not conventionally conceptualized in terms of metaphor.

Metaphors can kill and metaphors can heal. Metaphor can be a neural structure that provides a conscious means for comprehending an unknown and metaphor can be a neural structure that is unconsciously mapped (to be located) from one mental space onto another mental space. There is empirical evidence to justify the hypothesis that the brain will, in many circumstances, copy the neural structure from one mental space onto another mental space.

Linguistic metaphors are learning aids. We constantly communicate our meaning by using linguistic metaphors; we use something already known to communicate the meaning of something unknown. Many metaphors, labeled as primary metaphors by cognitive science, are widespread throughout many languages. These widespread metaphors are not innate; they are learned. “There appear to be at least several hundred such widespread, and perhaps universal, metaphors.”

Primary metaphors have this widespread characteristic because they are products of our common biology. Primary metaphors are embodied; they result from human experience, they “are part of the cognitive unconscious.”

Metaphor is a standard means we have of understanding an unknown by association with a known. When we analyze the metaphor ‘bad is stinky’ we will find that we are making a subjective judgment wherein the olfactory sensation becomes the source of the judgment. ‘This movie stinks’ is a subjective judgment and it is made in this manner because a sensorimotor experience is the structure for making this judgment.

CS is claiming that the neural structure of sensorimotor experience is mapped onto the mental space for another experience that is not sensorimotor but subjective and that this neural mapping becomes part of the subjective concept. The sensorimotor experience serves the role of an axiom for the subjective experience.

Physical experiences of all kinds lead to conceptual metaphors from which perhaps hundreds of ‘primary metaphors’, which are neural structures resulting from sensorimotor experiences, are created. These primary metaphors provide the ‘seed bed’ for the judgments and subjective experiences in life. “Conceptual metaphor is pervasive in both thought and language. It is hard to think of a common subjective experience that is not conventionally conceptualized in terms of metaphor.”

The neural network created by the sensorimotor function when an infant is embraced becomes a segment of the neural network when that infant creates the subjective experience of affection. Thus—affection is warmth.

An infant is born and when embraced for the first time by its mother the infant experiences the sensation of warmth. In succeeding experiences the warmth is felt along with other sensations.

Empirical data verifies that there often happens a conflation of this sensation experience together with the development of a subjective (abstract) concept we can call affection. With each similar experience the infant fortifies both the sensation experience and the affection experience and a little later this conflation aspect ends and the child has these two concepts in different mental spaces.

This conflation leads us to readily recognize the metaphor ‘affection is warmth’.

Cognitive science hypothesizes that conceptual metaphors resulting from conflation emerges in two stages: during the conflation stage two distinct but coactive domains are established that remain separate for only a short while at which time they lose their coactive characteristic and become differentiated into metaphorical source and target.

I find that this ‘conceptual metaphor’ paradigm is a great means for comprehending the human condition. But, like me, you will have to study the matter for a long time before you will be able to make a judgment as to its value. This book “Philosophy in the Flesh” by Lakoff and Johnson, from which I derived these ideas and quotes, is filled with ideas that are new to the reader and thus studying it will require a good bit of perseverance.

Have you ever, before reading this post, thought that the brain unconsciously copies the neural structure from one mental space onto another mental space? Those who find this idea compelling will discover, in this new cognitive science paradigm, a completely new way of thinking about philosophy and human nature.

This new cognitive science paradigm is the best thing to happen to philosophy since Thales! How about them apples?

[al8]

Cobherst why are you spamming many boards with the same thing# (http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=Mammals+evolved+on+this+planet+about+200+million +years+ago.+One+type+of+mammal,+the+hominid,+began +using+audible+signals+to+convey+meaning+about+4+m illion+years+ago.+Language,+as+we+comprehend+that+ word,+began+much+less+than+4+million+years+ago.&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8)? And you did not site your second post, giving a false impression that it is your own! Hower you to so in your other treads. What's that all about!

[JimmyJazz]

Ernie, don't get too happy that coberst wrote out that long reply just for you.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2109162

[ernie]

Ernie, don't get too happy that coberst wrote out that long reply just for you.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2109162
And here I thought I was special :(.

[Revy]

Wow , you don't know how long I've been thinking this around in my head ..how do animals think without words .. in that sense ... Cheers for the post :)

This is a misconception, animals do indeed have language, and words. We didn't just invent language through our human evolution. More primitive and less complex forms were already in place.


Con Slobodchikoff at Northern Arizona University has done some of the most amazing studies in animal communication and cognition. Using sonograms to analyze the distress calls of Gunnison's prairie dog, one of five species of prairie dogs found in the U.S. and Mexico, he has found that prairie dog colonies have a communication system that includes nouns, verbs, and adjectives. They can tell one another what kind of predator is approaching -- man, hawk, coyote, dog (noun) -- and they can tell each other how fast it's moving (verb). They can say whether a human is carrying a gun or not.

They can also identify individual coyotes and tell one another which one is coming. They can tell the other prairie dogs that the approaching coyote is the one who likes to walk straight through the colony and then suddenly lunge at a prairie dog who's gotten too far away from the entrance to his burrow, or the one who likes to lie patiently by the side of a hole for an hour and wait for his dinner to appear. If the prairie dogs are signaling the approach of a person, they can tell one another something -- about what color clothing the person is wearing, as well as something about his size and shape (adjectives). They also have a lot of other calls that have not been deciphered.



Dr. Slobodchikoff was able to interpret the calls by videotaping everything, analyzing the sound spectrum, and then watching the video to see what the prairie dog making a distress call was reacting to when he made it. He also watched to see how the other prairie dogs responded. That was an important clue, because he found that the prairie dogs reacted differently to different warnings. If the warning was about a hawk making a dive, all the prairie dogs raced to their burrows and vanished down into holes. But if the hawk was circling overhead, the prairie dogs stopped foraging, stood up in an alert posture, and waited to see what happened next. If the call warned about a human, the prairie dogs all ran for their burrows no matter how fast the human was coming.



Dr. Slobodchikoff also found evidence that prairie dogs aren't born knowing the calls, the way a baby is born knowing how to cry. They have to learn them. He bases this on the fact that the different prairie dog colonies around Flagstaff all have different dialects. Since genetically these animals are almost identical, Dr. Slobodchikoff argues that genetic differences can't explain the differences in the calls. That means the calls have been created by the individual colonies and passed on from one generation to the next.
Is this "real" language? A philosopher of language might say no, but the case against animal language is getting weaker. Different linguists have somewhat different definitions of language, but everyone agrees that language has to have meaning, productivity (you can use the same words to make an infinite number of now communications), and displacement (you can use language to talk about things that aren't present).


Prairie dogs use their language to refer to real dangers in the real world, so it definitely has meaning.

[al8]

Stancel, please cite your sources; http://www.grandin.com/inc/animals.in.translation.ch6.html

[Sean]

Have we anyone with a forte in linguistics in the house? This seems completely opposed to Chomsky who I only know from a few cursory glances at his work. It looks like someone pasted something as much out of context as I am in replying to this thread. I'd like coberst to elaborate instead of pasting things.

[Led Zeppelin]

Coberst, you keep posting threads like these in the Theory forum while they belong in Science and Environment, Philosophy etc.

Please post your threads in the appropriate forum.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Coberst, you must be using the word 'thought' non-literally.

Here's an experiment: say the following words "I chased a bug around a tree; I'll have his blood he knows I will."

Now, without using any words at all, think the same thought.

Can't do it?

No, neither can anyone else.

That shows that thought and language are intimately connected, whatever current trendy theories in cognitive science might say.

[black magick hustla]

Can you think about why you find something sexually attractive though? Or why you think something is beautiful? Or perhaps that is not thought, that is emotional impulse....

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Cobherst why are you spamming many boards with the same thing# (http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=Mammals+evolved+on+this+planet+about+200+million +years+ago.+One+type+of+mammal,+the+hominid,+began +using+audible+signals+to+convey+meaning+about+4+m illion+years+ago.+Language,+as+we+comprehend+that+ word,+began+much+less+than+4+million+years+ago.&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8)? And you did not site your second post, giving a false impression that it is your own! Hower you to so in your other treads. What's that all about!

Sounds like he's a major-league plagiarist. I don't know about the rest of you guys, but I am full of nothing but contempt for plagiarists.

[Dr Mindbender]

i'm probably guilty of stating the obvious, but i think for the most part animal behaviour is defined by instinct rather than conscious thought.

Although, i think it's dishonest to say that linguistics per se is confined to human beings. In studies, chimpanzees were found to have a rudimentary 'language' consisting of grunts and facial expressions. Animals like dogs and dolphins were found to have an understanding of basic mathematical problems (proving that dogs and dolphins have the capacity to concieve concepts like numbers). I remember reading somewhere that a fully grown dolphin has the 'intelligence' of a 7 year old human child, so i wouldnt be surprised if among chimps they also have some linguistic ability among each other in their high pitched squeaks.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Ulster, the things you mention are methods of signalling, and that is not the same as communicating in a language.

[Dean]

We have a very narrowly - defined system of language. Consider the notion of "freedom." There is no clear definition which addresses the disproportionate / inapplicable notions of freedom which range from "chaos" to "liberty" &c..

Since we have such a broad spectrum of ideas and such a limited linguistic application, the social application of our own interests can be said to be disproportionate, misrepresented and strangulated when we necessarily pidgeon-hole our own emotion. If a person has a fairly well-defined, comprehensive notion of "freedom," that attitude can be broken down and twisted quickly. Freedom, applying to human notions of material existence, includes an egalitarian commodity distribution which can in turn become proof of the "autoritarian" and therefore "anti-free" character of such a notion of freedom.

I'm not a hundred percent on the 95% statistic above, but if we think of that 95% as the ideas which do not succintly fit into language, than it cna be said that the linguistic representation of 95% of our ideas is completely dishonest. Now, I'm not sure again on how it is define d- are these all conscious conceptualizations or general brain activity and firing (probably the latter)? I would say that the dishonest expression is certainly in the majority, but to what degree it is not certain.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Dean:


I'm not a hundred percent on the 95% statistic above, but if we think of that 95% as the ideas which do not succintly fit into language, than it cna be said that the linguistic representation of 95% of our ideas is completely dishonest. Now, I'm not sure again on how it is define d- are these all conscious conceptualizations or general brain activity and firing (probably the latter)? I would say that the dishonest expression is certainly in the majority, but to what degree it is not certain.

But what does this mean? If we can't 'fit' these into language (whatever that means), how can you call them 'ideas'?

[ckaihatsu]

Hi there. Firstly, I think "thought" is only thought when it is conscious. Any brain activity that happens on an unconscious level would be instinct.

It is not "accurate to say that the action of neural networks that control our sensorimotor (?!) actions can be regarded as thought." An ant is able to move around. Would you say the ant is "thinking" and deciding where it should go, or is it following pheromone trails laid out by other ants by instinct? When an animal winces and pulls back after touching a flame, it isn't thinking, it is instinctually reacting.


There's a difference between the inherited, genetically based instinct that ants (for example) have, versus *learned* behaviors that become part of our memory, or muscle-memory, if you like.

Likewise, brain activity is nothing but *fancy* muscle-memory, so we're able to process a lot of lower-level stimuli, including lower-level thoughts, through these learned routines, in a semi-conscious, or even sub-conscious, mode.

Consider an athlete's reflexes in reacting to a baseball hit right at them -- everything else is *just* like that, even slower, everyday stimuli from everyday-life routines -- the only difference is the pace of the stimuli and the speed of our attention to it, the complexity of it, and our responses.



Second, even if what you say is accurate, it doesn't follow that Philosophy is nonsense or even "what we think is true about thinking" is nonsense. Obviously, Philosophy concerns itself with the conscious mind.


Philosophy is overrated in my opinion. Some can be helpful but too much just becomes cumbersome. It really meanders over many fields, not in an all-inclusive way -- much is dualistic and a-societal -- and is therefore myopic.



Thirdly, couldn't it be argued that if language is a fairly new evolutionary development, that would make it more important to our survival? Obviously, natural selection preferred people that could communicate most efficiency, and those that were able to do so were able to survive better, leading to those with the ability for "language" to multiply and thrive.


Don't forget upright posture and opposable thumbs...!



And what about other animals that seem to have rather complex language, like whales and dolphins?

What the original poster seems to be hinting at is an advocation of irrationalism -- a cornerstone of the primitivist mindset which anarchist-communists, communists, and all those that believe in class struggle and liberatory science and technology should reject.

Coberst: you might want to read Zerzan's work on this subject to strengthen your arguments.


Maybe cut him some slack and let's say that the mind, in motion, will tend to stay in motion. This could be likened to any other dynamic, cascading system like stormclouds containing electrical charges or a body of water containing currents and eddies.

It's not necessarily *thought*, but it *is* brain activity that can either be focused on by the conscious mind, or dampened by the willful mind.


Chris



--


--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u

[Dean]

Dean:



But what does this mean? If we can't 'fit' these into language (whatever that means), how can you call them 'ideas'?

Because they are mental expressions in the same way that I might think of an egalitarian society. The fact is that we simply don't have a term for 'equality,' not in the sense as I understand it. So when I think of social organizations which I consider equal, I am at a loss for words because of the restrictions of language. aIt would take about ten pages of awkward language to properly convery my notion of equality, but the fact is that I would still not be concisely or explicitly describing it. The words I need are simply not present in my current and past social and academic environments.

I know you might say that, since this is my notion of the term, it is defined. But without a social expression of that definition, it is simply not a feasible linguistic expression.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Dean:


Because they are mental expressions in the same way that I might think of an egalitarian society.

I am sorry, but language is not a 'mental expression'. In fact, I am not sure what the phrase 'mental expression' means.

Language is of course a means of communication, and we can express ourselves in language.


So when I think of social organizations which I consider equal, I am at a loss for words because of the restrictions of language. aIt would take about ten pages of awkward language to properly convery my notion of equality, but the fact is that I would still not be concisely or explicitly describing it. The words I need are simply not present in my current and past social and academic environments.

But then others may be able to do this, so I do not see the problem.


I know you might say that, since this is my notion of the term, it is defined. But without a social expression of that definition, it is simply not a feasible linguistic expression.

No, I would not say that. What I would say is that the word does not need defining if we already know how to use it. On the other hand, if we do not know how to use it, no definition will help (unless it is a technical term -- which I take it it isn't).

As my old professor of logic use to say, I do not know how to define elephant or post box, but I know where to put my letters, and which one to feed buns.:)

[DesertShark]

Coberst, you must be using the word 'thought' non-literally.

Here's an experiment: say the following words "I chased a bug around a tree; I'll have his blood he knows I will."

Now, without using any words at all, think the same thought.

Can't do it?

No, neither can anyone else.

That shows that thought and language are intimately connected, whatever current trendy theories in cognitive science might say.
Actually I can. I drew out a picture to show it:

http://s408.photobucket.com/albums/pp162/NeverLostDesertShark/?action=view&current=thoughtexperiment.jpghttp://i408.photobucket.com/albums/pp162/NeverLostDesertShark/thoughtexperiment.jpg

(guy in thought picture courtesy of http://travel.webshots.com/photo/1439351627040063801WsyNQa)

-DS

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Thanks for that DS, but, as you should know, pictures are open to an indeterminate number of interpretations. We discriminate among these by the use of language.

Moreover, a picture is not a thought.

Anyway, you used my words to draw your picture. That alone shows language is primary.

[DesertShark]

Thanks for that DS, but, as you should know, pictures are open to an indeterminate number of interpretations. We discriminate among these by the use of language.
That's outside of the scope of the post I responded to, your argument was this:

Here's an experiment: say the following words "I chased a bug around a tree; I'll have his blood he knows I will."

Now, without using any words at all, think the same thought.

Can't do it?

No, neither can anyone else.
I did the experiment and I could do it without any problems, so your claim that no one can think it without words is false. When I thought it without words, roughly that image came to mind (I say roughly because my computer drawing skills are minimal, as evident by the crudeness of the picture; it was also more colorful). I drew the picture to share one way to think that sentence without words.


Moreover, a picture is not a thought.
True because thoughts are only in your head. That picture came from a thought, which means that a picture can be an expression of thought.


Anyway, you used my words to draw your picture. That alone shows language is primary.
HAHAHA! Yea I had to because it was part of the experiment you asked people to do. Could you elaborate on how "That alone shows language is primary?"

-DesertShark

[Dean]

Thanks for that DS, but, as you should know, pictures are open to an indeterminate number of interpretations. We discriminate among these by the use of language.

Moreover, a picture is not a thought.

Anyway, you used my words to draw your picture. That alone shows language is primary.

Rosa, I've noticed this in the past, but I wasn't able to pinpoint it until this thread. Your fault is an inability to look past the realm of applied language. It seems like an obsession with the power of debate, where the more fluid subtleties of existence are neglected. Your inference that all ideas can be expressed as words (or indeed are words) exemplifies this narrow view.

The fact is that you correctly assert that ideas X are expressed in words, Y. But you apparently forget that, as a creation of X, Y is far smaller and subject to all the subtle connotations and experiences of X.

To you, this ignorance seems like a sly rejection of mysticism. And you would be right, to a degree. But you ae actually condemning yourself to a very narrow, simplistic and ultimately self-limited system of ideation. I simply don't want to be limited in that way, especially when mysticism represents an affirmation of all the human elements that exist between people.

[ckaihatsu]

Your inference that all ideas can be expressed as words (or indeed are words) exemplifies this narrow view.


Dean, are you *really* saying that there are some ideas or feelings that *can't* be expressed (to a reasonably accurate degree) using words?



The fact is that you correctly assert that ideas X are expressed in words, Y. But you apparently forget that, as a creation of X, Y is far smaller and subject to all the subtle connotations and experiences of X.


The expression of ideas X using words Y requires intellectual effort. Since this effort, and the time it takes to effect the effort, is limited in a person's life, it is impossible to express *the entirety* of *all* realtime, ongoing life experiences W, as ideas X, using words Y. Simply put, one cannot BOTH *experience* external (and internal) reality while *documenting* it at the same time. It's basically either-or, with some gray area between the two.



To you, this ignorance seems like a sly rejection of mysticism. And you would be right, to a degree. But you ae actually condemning yourself to a very narrow, simplistic and ultimately self-limited system of ideation. I simply don't want to be limited in that way, especially when mysticism represents an affirmation of all the human elements that exist between people.


Jesus Christ Almighty, Lord God Savior Of All That Exists On This Mortal Plane And Every Other, Dean, are you *really* asserting the existence of a "mystic" "realm"??? You're saying it deals with interpersonal dynamics? Like material / emotional ones? Can you elaborate on this "mysticism" as it relates to materialism? (Thanks.)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

DS:


I did the experiment and I could do it without any problems, so your claim that no one can think it without words is false. When I thought it without words, roughly that image came to mind (I say roughly because my computer drawing skills are minimal, as evident by the crudeness of the picture; it was also more colorful). I drew the picture to share one way to think that sentence without words.

What you apparently did is try to visualise pictures. As I noted, thinking and visualisation are not the same -- or, at least, you have yet to show they are.

Second, as I also noted, the images you visulaised are all open to alternative interpretations (whereas the sentence I gave is not). That is enough to show the two are not at all the same.

Now try it with any of these:

H1: Every sailor loves a girl who most reminds him of anyone other than his mother.

H2: Anyone who knows Marx's work will also know that he is second to none in his analysis of all the economic forces operating in Capitalism, and most of those constitutive of other Modes of Production.

H3: Any prime factor of an even number between two and one hundred is less than a composite number not equal to but greater than fifty.

H4: Some who admire most of those who do not despise themselves often avoid sitting opposite any who criticise those who claim membership of the minority break-away faction of the Socrates Appreciation Society.

H5: Today, Blair met some of those who think his policy in Iraq is a betrayal of his few remaining socialist principles.

Each of these is understandable, and thus expresses a thought, but try visualising them.


True because thoughts are only in your head. That picture came from a thought, which means that a picture can be an expression of thought.

Thoughts are not in our heads. Whatever gave you that odd idea?


Yea I had to because it was part of the experiment you asked people to do. Could you elaborate on how "That alone shows language is primary?"

Now, try it the other way round, no words at all. [But not using my example.]

If you can do this (which I doubt), you will need to use words to tell us what your thoughts are.

In that case, language is essential to making our thoughts clear, and for distinguishing among interpretations.

In other words, you have no thoughts that are not language based.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Dean:


Rosa, I've noticed this in the past, but I wasn't able to pinpoint it until this thread. Your fault is an inability to look past the realm of applied language. It seems like an obsession with the power of debate, where the more fluid subtleties of existence are neglected. Your inference that all ideas can be expressed as words (or indeed are words) exemplifies this narrow view.

If it can't be put into words, there is no thought there. That more accurately expresses my view, not your 'summary' above.


The fact is that you correctly assert that ideas X are expressed in words, Y. But you apparently forget that, as a creation of X, Y is far smaller and subject to all the subtle connotations and experiences of X.

I deny this; but even if it were so, you could not tell us anyway because we would not have access to your 'connotations' and 'experience', and so we would not be able to understand you.

In that case, what you say here is meaningless to us (or, of indeterminate sense) -- so it in fact represents no challenge at all to my ideas, since it does not even amount to a comprehensible challenge to begin with.


To you, this ignorance seems like a sly rejection of mysticism. And you would be right, to a degree. But you ae actually condemning yourself to a very narrow, simplistic and ultimately self-limited system of ideation. I simply don't want to be limited in that way, especially when mysticism represents an affirmation of all the human elements that exist between people.

Not so; my approach to language allows the many and varied public meanings of words to take precedence.

The problem with mysticism is that even those who fall for it cannot tell us what they mean by it -- otherwise it would not be 'mystical'!

In that case, as far as I can see, there is nothing there to tell.

[benhur]

Most thinking is visual thinking.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_thinking

[benhur]

Thoughts are not in our heads. Whatever gave you that odd idea?



I thought normal people had thoughts in their heads? Maybe, for you, it's some place else.;)

[Sendo]

colorless green ideas sleep furiously

[DesertShark]

What you apparently did is try to visualise pictures. As I noted, thinking and visualisation are not the same -- or, at least, you have yet to show they are.

Second, as I also noted, the images you visulaised are all open to alternative interpretations (whereas the sentence I gave is not). That is enough to show the two are not at all the same.
I didn't "try" to visualize pictures, I thought your sentence without words and then expressed that thought without words. Prove/show thinking and visualization aren't the same thing.
Actually, your sentence was open to interpretation as well. Who knew exactly what you meant by "have his blood." Did you mean bleed him to death? Drink his blood? Eat his blood in a stew? Smear his blood all over your body? Where his blood on your face and do a little dance? Also, what type of bug? What type of tree? What type of blood do you mean (ie vertebrate blood or insect blood which is not actually blood but hemolymph)? Your sentence, along with most sentences and words, have multiple interpretations. This is what causes people to explain things in multiple ways or answer questions about what they said; language and its use are far from perfect.


Now try it with any of these:
No. I already played your silly game. I'm not going to try out every sentence you can come up with so that you can find a few that I can't think without words because I'm sure there are some. All I needed to do was to show once that a sentence can be thought without words to prove your claim wrong, and I did that.


Thoughts are not in our heads. Whatever gave you that odd idea?
umm...because no one else can experience them, they are internal and unique to me. Where are your thoughts?


Now, try it the other way round, no words at all. [But not using my example.]
I have no idea what you meant by this. Can you use more language to clarify the language you already used? I thought language was supposed to be infallible? (If not, it appeared that way based on all your claims.)


If you can do this (which I doubt), you will need to use words to tell us what your thoughts are.
Part of expressing thought is through words, no one is dening that. But part of expressing thought is also done through art and other mediums and doesn't have to use words, that's the part you keep missing.


In that case, language is essential to making our thoughts clear, and for distinguishing among interpretations.

In other words, you have no thoughts that are not language based.
You (nor anyone else) can know my thoughts because they are mine, so you cannot claim that I "have no thoughts that are not language based" because you simply have no idea and can never know.
Can you elobrate more as to how you came to these conculsions? Also, you never explained your claim: "That alone shows language is primary." Will you do that?

-DesertShark

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

DS:


I didn't "try" to visualize pictures, I thought your sentence without words and then expressed that thought without words. Prove/show thinking and visualization aren't the same thing.

How could you then 'think' about my sentence and not use words -- it contains words!

In that case, how do you know that the thought you had when you thought about my sentence was the same as the thought expressed by my sentence?


Actually, your sentence was open to interpretation as well. Who knew exactly what you meant by "have his blood." Did you mean bleed him to death? Drink his blood? Eat his blood in a stew? Smear his blood all over your body? Where his blood on your face and do a little dance? Also, what type of bug? What type of tree? What type of blood do you mean (ie vertebrate blood or insect blood which is not actually blood but hemolymph)? Your sentence, along with most sentences and words, have multiple interpretations. This is what causes people to explain things in multiple ways or answer questions about what they said; language and its use are far from perfect.

Maybe so, but you will note that even you try to resolve such ambiguities by the use of yet more language. Now, try doing that without language. And then try telling us about it without further ambiguity (which would then require yet more language to clear up), and so on...


I already played your silly game. I'm not going to try out every sentence you can come up with so that you can find a few that I can't think without words because I'm sure there are some. All I needed to do was to show once that a sentence can be thought without words to prove your claim wrong, and I did that.

Well, the point of these new sentences is to show that we can express far more complex thoughts in language than we can anywhere else.

So, I am not surprised you backed down.


because no one else can experience them, they are internal and unique to me.

Not so, I just experienced that thought of yours.


Where are your thoughts?

Depends on how you are using the word 'thoughts'.

My thoughts can be put on paper, on the screen in front of you, in the sky (if I use a sky-writer), or they can be with a loved one (as in 'My thoughts are with you'). They can be in a book I might have written, or in a film I might have directed. They can be in a drawer or a safe if a book I had written was stored away. They can be in a painting, piece of music, statue, play...if I had authored all these.

So, thoughts are never in our heads -- even if you talk to yourself, they are in your voice box, at best.


I have no idea what you meant by this. Can you use more language to clarify the language you already used? I thought language was supposed to be infallible? (If not, it appeared that way based on all your claims.)

Well, try and have a thought with no words at all, even before I suggest a sentence.

Can you do it? I doubt you can, but then if you could, you will need language to tell even yourself what that thought was.


Part of expressing thought is through words, no one is denying that. But part of expressing thought is also done through art and other mediums and doesn't have to use words, that's the part you keep missing.

Well, the problem with this is that you have no way of expressing a thought, even to yourself, without the use of language.

In that case, the only handle you have on thought, even if it were private to you, is through language.

Anything else you might want to attribute to thought over and above this will be indeterminate, even to you -- without the use of language.

In which case, you will find it hard to distinguish this supposed 'extra' feature of thought from nothing whatsoever.

In that case, we can ignore it.


You (nor anyone else) can know my thoughts because they are mine, so you cannot claim that I "have no thoughts that are not language based" because you simply have no idea and can never know.

Sure you can keep them to yourself, but we can come to know your thoughts if you use language to tell us. Indeed, even you will not know what your thoughts are unless you say them to yourself in some language or other.


Can you elaborate more as to how you came to these conclusions? Also, you never explained your claim: "That alone shows language is primary." Will you do that?

Well, this is a huge topic, and it is based on the Philosophy of Ludwig Wittgenstein:

http://www.iep.utm.edu/w/wittgens.htm

It is far too big to go into here in any great detail, but it is based in the idea that we learn to think when we are socialised into a linguistic community. We are taught what words mean by our carers, siblings, peers and teachers, we do not discover their meaning for ourselves (except we use dictionaries etc., which are public records too), and that includes the word 'thought'. In that case, its public meaning is primary, and that meaning is connected with the use of language.

And that is why language is primary here.

The contrary view is a carry-over from the Platonic/Christian/Cartesian doctrine of the soul, and it is one the 'ruling ideas that still rule'. So that is why it seems quite normal to you, and why it dominates cognitive theory, and much of psychology, too.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BenHur:


Most thinking is visual thinking.

I am sorry to have to tell you, but Wikipedia is not a god-like authority here.

As I have argued in this thread, it is not even close to the truth, either!


I thought normal people had thoughts in their heads? Maybe, for you, it's some place else.

Well, that thought of yours was on my screeen!

Does that mean you are abnormal?

[Lynx]

I wouldn't need language to chase a squirrel around a tree, would I? I could act on impulse or dream about it and not use language at all. No need in describing an experience to yourself whilst you are experiencing it!

To describe an event requires the formal use of words. If I'm going to communicate them to others I shall be even more formal and use them in sentences.

Simply thinking about an event to myself enables me to use a kind of shorthand - mostly words to represent terms with the relationship between those terms not being expressed. Actually doing what I am thinking removes the need for my thoughts to be in words at all. I can use this freedom to think of other things while I work...

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Lynx:


I wouldn't need language to chase a squirrel around a tree, would I? I could act on impulse or dream about it and not use language at all. No need in describing an experience to yourself whilst you are experiencing it!

Who is suggesting you do?


Simply thinking about an event to myself enables me to use a kind of shorthand - mostly words to represent terms with the relationship between those terms not being expressed. Actually doing what I am thinking removes the need for my thoughts to be in words at all. I can use this freedom to think of other things while I work...

Maybe so, but I am not sure what this has to do with the discusssion.

The problem is that comrades are reaching what look like scientific conclusions based on one example: introspection, a notorioulsy unreliable source of information. They are then ignoring what the public meaning of words like 'thought' are, and not surprisingly arriving at a conclusion that is in line with the Platonic/Christian/Cartesian view of the soul (that thinking is sui generis and a private affair we all engage in secretly in our heads), a ruling-class dogma that has dominated practically all thought on this topic for well over 2000 years.

On the other hand, my attempt to break new ground is aimed at undermining this 'ruling idea'.

It is difficult to accept for precisely that reason.

[DesertShark]

How could you then 'think' about my sentence and not use words -- it contains words!
Because I can think without using words; apparently I have an incredible ability to have wordless thoughts.


In that case, how do you know that the thought you had when you thought about my sentence was the same as the thought expressed by my sentence?
Whether or not one used words to think about your sentence would not lead to knowing if the two thoughts were the same. I'll never have "the same thought(s)" as you or anyone else, just as you will never have the same thoughts as anyone else.


Maybe so, but you will note that even you try to resolve such ambiguities by the use of yet more language. Now, try doing that without language. And then try telling us about it without further ambiguity (which would then require yet more language to clear up), and so on...
I wasn't trying to resolve ambiguities in your language, I was pointing them out. In the context of our ability to communicate with one another on a forum, language is the only way. You claimed my image had multiple interpretations and I was showing you that your sentence did as well. There's no "maybe" in that - yes your sentence has multiple interpretations.


Well, the point of these new sentences is to show that we can express far more complex thoughts in language than we can anywhere else.

So, I am not surprised you backed down.
I didn't deny that, nor was I claiming that. I understood why you did that, which is why I said: "I'm not going to try out every sentence you can come up with so that you can find a few that I can't think without words because I'm sure there are some. All I needed to do was to show once that a sentence can be thought without words to prove your claim wrong, and I did that." (I added emphasis this time in an attempt to make it clearer.)


Not so, I just experienced that thought of yours.
No. What you experienced was my expression of my thought, not my thought itself.


Depends on how you are using the word 'thoughts'.
If you'd like I could provide some dictionary definitions of the word, but I know you don't use it for words you already know so I'm not sure how to handle your statement. I guess you could explain what you mean by "thoughts", since you've already made a claim about someone using the word non-literally.


My thoughts can be put on paper, on the screen in front of you, in the sky (if I use a sky-writer), or they can be with a loved one (as in 'My thoughts are with you'). They can be in a book I might have written, or in a film I might have directed. They can be in a drawer or a safe if a book I had written was stored away. They can be in a painting, piece of music, statue, play...if I had authored all these.
Those are all expressions of thoughts, not thoughts themselves. So where are your thoughts before you express them?


So, thoughts are never in our heads -- even if you talk to yourself, they are in your voice box, at best.
You haven't proven that. All you've done is shown that thoughts can be expressed in many ways, which everyone already knew. Again, where are your thoughts before you express them? Also, talking does involve your voice box, but what about someone who talks to their self without vocalization or even an attempt to vocalize it?


Well, try and have a thought with no words at all, even before I suggest a sentence.

Can you do it? I doubt you can, but then if you could, you will need language to tell even yourself what that thought was.
Yes I can. No I don't, I don't need to "tell myself" about my thoughts, my thoughts stand alone...as thoughts and I know what they are of. If I didn't know what my thoughts were of, I wouldn't be able to express them in any form.


Well, the problem with this is that you have no way of expressing a thought, even to yourself, without the use of language.
Like I said, I don't need to express my own thoughts to my self because they are my thoughts. If I want to express my thoughts, its to share them with someone else, not my self.


In that case, the only handle you have on thought, even if it were private to you, is through language.
Your thoughts are not private before you express them? :confused: Do you just say all of your thoughts out aloud as you have them?


Anything else you might want to attribute to thought over and above this will be indeterminate, even to you -- without the use of language.

In which case, you will find it hard to distinguish this supposed 'extra' feature of thought from nothing whatsoever.

In that case, we can ignore it.
Can you clarify these claims?


Sure you can keep them to yourself, but we can come to know your thoughts if you use language to tell us.
Indeed or if I express them in some other way, like in a painting, sculpture, or music.

Indeed, even you will not know what your thoughts are unless you say them to yourself in some language or other.
If I don't know what my thoughts are, I wouldn't be able to express them in the first place, "even to myself".


Well, this is a huge topic, and it is based on the Philosophy of Ludwig Wittgenstein:

http://www.iep.utm.edu/w/wittgens.htm

It is far too big to go into here in any great detail, but it is based in the idea that we learn to think when we are socialised into a linguistic community. We are taught what words mean by our carers, siblings, peers and teachers, we do not discover their meaning for ourselves (except we use dictionaries etc., which are public records too), and that includes the word 'thought'. In that case, its public meaning is primary, and that meaning is connected with the use of language.

And that is why language is primary here.
I read through that page and I couldn't find your claim or conclusion that language is primary. If you could direct me to the specific section(s) and paragraph(s), that would helpful. Also, if you could define what you mean by primary, that would be extremely helpful.


The contrary view is a carry-over from the Platonic/Christian/Cartesian doctrine of the soul, and it is one the 'ruling ideas that still rule'. So that is why it seems quite normal to you, and why it dominates cognitive theory, and much of psychology, too.
I'm not a mind/body dualist, if that is what you are implying. Nor has anything I've said shown that. The statement: my thoughts are in my head, would be the opposite of mind/body dualism. That's because a mind/body dualist would claim your thoughts are elsewhere outside your body, not your brain.

A lot of what you are claiming sounds like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_of_thought
Is that true?

-DesertShark

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

DS:


Because I can think without using words; apparently I have an incredible ability to have wordless thoughts.

How do you know? Introspection is notoriously unreliable.


Whether or not one used words to think about your sentence would not lead to knowing if the two thoughts were the same. I'll never have "the same thought(s)" as you or anyone else, just as you will never have the same thoughts as anyone else.

But, you said earlier that you could have the same thought as my 'bug around a tree' example.

Now you say you didn't, or you can't.

Which is it to be?


I wasn't trying to resolve ambiguities in your language, I was pointing them out. In the context of our ability to communicate with one another on a forum, language is the only way. You claimed my image had multiple interpretations and I was showing you that your sentence did as well. There's no "maybe" in that - yes your sentence has multiple interpretations.

In that case, you used language to point them and this out.

And if your 'images' have multiple interpretations, they too will be expressed in language.


I didn't deny that, nor was I claiming that. I understood why you did that, which is why I said: "I'm not going to try out every sentence you can come up with so that you can find a few that I can't think without words because I'm sure there are some. All I needed to do was to show once that a sentence can be thought without words to prove your claim wrong, and I did that." (I added emphasis this time in an attempt to make it clearer.)

But, you have already conceded (above) that your thought could not be identical with the thought expressed by my sentence. So, you have not thought that thought, as you claimed you had.

Indeed, if we generalise this, you can't think the thought (non-linguistically) of any sentence, let alone the ones I posted.


What you experienced was my expression of my thought, not my thought itself.

Then why isn't the 'thought' in your mind/head/brain not also an 'expression', too?


If you'd like I could provide some dictionary definitions of the word, but I know you don't use it for words you already know so I'm not sure how to handle your statement. I guess you could explain what you mean by "thoughts", since you've already made a claim about someone using the word non-literally.

But, why rely on a dictionary, which is just the 'expression' of someone else's thought about 'thought', according to you?


You haven't proven that. All you've done is shown that thoughts can be expressed in many ways, which everyone already knew. Again, where are your thoughts before you express them? Also, talking does involve your voice box, but what about someone who talks to their self without vocalization or even an attempt to vocalize it?

We have yet to see your proof that your thoughts are in your head/brain/mind.

Now, I have given you perfectly ordinary uses of the word 'thought', which you have re-translated as 'expressions of thought'. So, when someone says they have put their thoughts on paper, they do not say "I have put an expression of my thoughts on paper". And when we say "My thoughts go out to you" in a letter to a friend, we do not say "An expression of my thoughts goes out to you", and so on. These thoughts are manifestly not in the head/brain/mind.


So where are your thoughts before you express them?

The same place yours were before you 'thought' them: nowhere.


Yes I can. No I don't, I don't need to "tell myself" about my thoughts, my thoughts stand alone...as thoughts and I know what they are of. If I didn't know what my thoughts were of, I wouldn't be able to express them in any form.

If you will excuse me saying this, you seem to be using an awful lot of language to tell us about your 'languageless thoughts'.

So, what form to these obscure 'thoughts' take?


Like I said, I don't need to express my own thoughts to my self because they are my thoughts. If I want to express my thoughts, its to share them with someone else, not my self.

Then, how do you know you have any? Or that your mind is not playing tricks on you (as psychologists have found in general with such forms of introspection).


Your thoughts are not private before you express them? Do you just say all of your thoughts out aloud as you have them?

Excuse me, I was employing 'private' in a technical sense we philosophers use; it means the equivalent of "essentially private". Of course, I can keep my thoughts to myself, but it is not true that thought is essentially private. Not only can we often tell what someone is thinking (we typically put it into words), our interlocutors often also tell us (again, using words).


Can you clarify these claims?

As I noted, the only handle we have on thought is through language (we are taught in a public arena what this word means). Anything else is inexpressible in language and so cannot be communicated to anyone else. In that case, it is no different from nothing at all.


Indeed or if I express them in some other way, like in a painting, sculpture, or music.

Sure, but if no one can say what those thoughts are, and you can't, then there aren't any there at all. On the other hand if they can, and you can, thought is linguistic after all.


I read through that page and I couldn't find your claim or conclusion that language is primary. If you could direct me to the specific section(s) and paragraph(s), that would helpful. Also, if you could define what you mean by primary, that would be extremely helpful.

Sorry, that link was just to tell you who the guy was, and give you a brief survey of his main ideas. I am not sure if there are any articles on the internet that go into this (but it is widely known among Wittgenstein scholars); in fact, this is the theme of a recent book about Wittgenstein:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&id=x2b5aI2ymsoC&dq=Hallett+Linguistic+Philosophy&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=NMw3YP17NT&sig=PEpmwkKRDUXThEPGgAnhk4o4JWg&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result

By 'primary' I mean that such philosophical questions can only be answered by looking at the language we use, and when we do that, such 'problems' disappear, for they are all prompted by a failure to command a clear view of language and its use.

You can see this from our discussions; we have very quickly homed-in on the use of certain words. Even if you want to deny what I have to say, you have to use language in some way. The question is, is this a legitimate use of language? And that too will be settled in language.


I'm not a mind/body dualist, if that is what you are implying. Nor has anything I've said shown that. The statement: my thoughts are in my head, would be the opposite of mind/body dualism. That's because a mind/body dualist would claim your thoughts are elsewhere outside your body, not your brain.

I realise that, but the ideas you hold here very quickly collapse into dualism.


A lot of what you are claiming sounds like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_of_thought
Is that true?

No, my ideas have absolutely nothing to do with Jerry Fodor's theory, or those associated with any other theorist working within this family of doctrines.

It is a misleading title, anyway, since by 'language of thought', they mean something pre-linguistic -- a bit like your ideas, in fact.

[DesertShark]

How do you know? Introspection is notoriously unreliable.
Knowing what my thoughts are of doesn't come from introspection, it comes from thinking. Thinking about my thoughts, actions, ideals, life, etc. would be introspection.


But, you said earlier that you could have the same thought as my 'bug around a tree' example.

Now you say you didn't, or you can't.

Which is it to be?
No, I originally said I could prove your claim wrong and I did. The conversation went like this:
You said that no one could think your sentence without words (post #15) ["Here's an experiment: say the following words "I chased a bug around a tree; I'll have his blood he knows I will."

Now, without using any words at all, think the same thought.

Can't do it?

No, neither can anyone else.

That shows that thought and language are intimately connected "]
I did and used an example (the image I posted) to show that it was possible (post #25).
You then claimed my picture was subject to multiple interpretations, while your sentence was not (post #26) ["Second, as I also noted, the images you visulaised are all open to alternative interpretations (whereas the sentence I gave is not). That is enough to show the two are not at all the same."].
I pointed out that while that was true, your sentence was also subject to multiple interpretations (post #35) ["Actually, your sentence was open to interpretation as well. Who knew exactly what you meant by "have his blood." Did you mean bleed him to death? Drink his blood? Eat his blood in a stew? Smear his blood all over your body? Where his blood on your face and do a little dance? Also, what type of bug? What type of tree? What type of blood do you mean (ie vertebrate blood or insect blood which is not actually blood but hemolymph)? Your sentence, along with most sentences and words, have multiple interpretations."]
And then you said "Maybe so" (post #36).
And then I said "There's no "maybe" in that - yes your sentence has multiple interpretations." (post#40).

You also said in post #36: "How could you then 'think' about my sentence and not use words -- it contains words!

In that case, how do you know that the thought you had when you thought about my sentence was the same as the thought expressed by my sentence? "
I could think about your sentence without words because the words in your sentence represent tangible things. And I made the claim multiple times that there's no way of knowing anyone else's thoughts (posts #35 and #40).


In that case, you used language to point them and this out.

And if your 'images' have multiple interpretations, they too will be expressed in language.
Again, we (you and I) must use language to communicate because of the medium available to us: a forum. So this point is irrelevant and misses the original point I was making in my first post on this thread (post #25). That point was this: that thoughts don't always have to contain words.


But, you have already conceded (above) that your thought could not be identical with the thought expressed by my sentence. So, you have not thought that thought, as you claimed you had.
Indeed there are no identical thoughts ever, anywhere. So this point is also irrelevant.


Indeed, if we generalise this, you can't think the thought (non-linguistically) of any sentence, let alone the ones I posted.
I don't see how this follows. And I already proved your sentence could be thought without words.


Then why isn't the 'thought' in your mind/head/brain not also an 'expression', too?
Because its in its original form. My thoughts are not expressions of my thoughts, this would lead to infinite regress and get us no where.


But, why rely on a dictionary, which is just the 'expression' of someone else's thought about 'thought', according to you?
Haha! You are so silly! I never made that claim or anything close to it. I believe dictionaries are EXTREMELY useful tools in understanding meanings of words and understanding how words are used in language. Dictionaries are a hard copy of the collective understanding of words used in a shared language, they are essential in language use. I use them all the time.


We have yet to see your proof that your thoughts are in your head/brain/mind.
Umm...ok?...The only proof I have (outside of my own experience) would be to ask others where their thoughts are and see what they say. You have yet to say where your thoughts are since they are not in your head/brain/mind. I think everyone is waiting to hear the answer to that...


Now, I have given you perfectly ordinary uses of the word 'thought', which you have re-translated as 'expressions of thought'. So, when someone says they have put their thoughts on paper, they do not say "I have put an expression of my thoughts on paper". And when we say "My thoughts go out to you" in a letter to a friend, we do not say "An expression of my thoughts goes out to you", and so on. These thoughts are manifestly not in the head/brain/mind.
I do not believe you have done that, so again if you could define what you mean by "thought" we can get on the same page faster. Are you arguing for the metaphorical use of the word "thought" here? Because that's what appears to be happening. Your speech/writing alone in those cases is an expression of thought. So where do your thoughts manifest themselves if not in your head/brain/mind?


The same place yours were before you 'thought' them: nowhere.
:laugh: Are you serious? Really? I don't believe you are serious. If your thoughts don't exist anywhere, then they don't exist at all. ;) I know where my thoughts are, and it's not "nowhere". Are your dreams "nowhere" too?


If you will excuse me saying this, you seem to be using an awful lot of language to tell us about your 'languageless thoughts'.

So, what form to these obscure 'thoughts' take?
Actually, I didn't use any to show it, I used a picture. If you look back at the original post (#25), you'd see that. In that post, I quoted you and said "Actually I can. I drew out a picture to show it:" and then posted the picture (I had to put that sentence in there so that in the forum setting the context is more easily understood). Since that post I've been using language to respond to you because like I've said a few times now: our only means of communication is through a forum...


Then, how do you know you have any? Or that your mind is not playing tricks on you (as psychologists have found in general with such forms of introspection).
I know I have thoughts as much as I know I exist. Nothing's ever proven my existence is real, so nothing's ever proven my thoughts are real either. But don't worry, I still get along everyday without any problems. I have yet to personally run into a non-existence problem, just as I have yet run into a problem of knowing when I am or am not thinking. On a more serious note, if you meditate (or have ever meditated successfully, ie 'clearing your mind'/brain/head/thoughts/whatever you want to call it) its easy to know when you are having thoughts and when you are not. If you've never tried it, I highly recommend it.


Excuse me, I was employing 'private' in a technical sense we philosophers use; it means the equivalent of "essentially private". Of course, I can keep my thoughts to myself, but it is not true that thought is essentially private. Not only can we often tell what someone is thinking (we typically put it into words), our interlocutors often also tell us (again, using words).
When you keep your thoughts to yourself, where do you put them? And what is this "interlocutors" that you speak of? It sounds like a fun word.


As I noted, the only handle we have on thought is through language (we are taught in a public arena what this word means). Anything else is inexpressible in language and so cannot be communicated to anyone else. In that case, it is no different from nothing at all.
Yes, you have noted all of this but have yet to prove it (I do agree and acknowledge that "we are taught in a public arena what" words mean, along with learning word meanings through reading books, magazines, newspapers, and dictionaries).


Sure, but if no one can say what those thoughts are, and you can't, then there aren't any there at all. On the other hand if they can, and you can, thought is linguistic after all.
You can communicate thoughts without using language: music, paintings, sculptures, dances, etc. Sometimes saying thoughts can make them easier to understand, but its not limited to language. Which means that thoughts are both linguistic and not linguistic, and can expressed in many many ways.


Sorry, that link was just to tell you who the guy was, and give you a brief survey of his main ideas. I am not sure if there are any articles on the internet that go into this (but it is widely known among Wittgenstein scholars); in fact, this is the theme of a recent book about Wittgenstein:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&id=x2b5aI2ymsoC&dq=Hallett+Linguistic+Philosophy&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=NMw3YP17NT&sig=PEpmwkKRDUXThEPGgAnhk4o4JWg&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result
I'll try to read that when I have more time.


By 'primary' I mean that such philosophical questions can only be answered by looking at the language we use, and when we do that, such 'problems' disappear, for they are all prompted by a failure to command a clear view of language and its use.
I agree that language causes a lot of problems, which is one of the reasons I dislike it.


You can see this from our discussions; we have very quickly homed-in on the use of certain words. Even if you want to deny what I have to say, you have to use language in some way. The question is, is this a legitimate use of language? And that too will be settled in language.
I never denied language use. I only denied that all thoughts have to be in the form of language and I already proved they didn't. Maybe you are just one of those people whose entire thoughts are limited to language, if that's the case I'm truly sorry because there is a lot you are missing out on. And it makes me wonder, what do you do when you encounter an object or experience that you don't have words to describe?


I realise that, but the ideas you hold here very quickly collapse into dualism.
I don't think so, but it would be helpful to me if you pointed out where so that I can try to avoid such distasteful confusion later on. Also, your claim that your thoughts are nowhere appears to be dualist, as it separates your thoughts from your physical body.


No, my ideas have absolutely nothing to do with Jerry Fodor's theory, or those associated with any other theorist working within this family of doctrines.
From the article: "[The primary claim is] namely that thought has tokens which follow linguistic rules." The only difference I could spot was that Fodor claimed a different language for thoughts while Wittgenstein claimed the language for thoughts is just the individual's public language.

My apologies if my lightheartedness on the matters at hand offends you, its all in good fun.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

DS, thanks for those comments, and for taking the time to reply.

However, I am sorry but I will have to duck out of this debate. It is taking up far too much of my time.

I used to have the energy to keep stuff like this going for months, but a recent operation has left me with far too little energy for this and my main purpose: to give the dialectical mystics here a hard time.

You can find out about the weaknesses of introspection here:

http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~eschwitz/SchwitzAbs/Naive.htm

Apologies once again; maybe when am feeling better...

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Sorry about the delay, but here is my response at last:

DS:


Knowing what my thoughts are of doesn't come from introspection, it comes from thinking. Thinking about my thoughts, actions, ideals, life, etc. would be introspection.

I am sorry, this is a distinction with no difference.


I did and used an example (the image I posted) to show that it was possible (post #25).

But an image is not a thought. And you have yet to tell us what form these mysterious 'thoughts' of yours take.




I pointed out that while that was true, your sentence was also subject to multiple interpretations (post #35)

Indeed, but any interpretation of an ambiguous sentence will be given in language. Same with 'images'.

But, you have an answer to this:


Again, we (you and I) must use language to communicate because of the medium available to us: a forum. So this point is irrelevant and misses the original point I was making in my first post on this thread (post #25). That point was this: that thoughts don't always have to contain words.

This misses the point: you can only interpret your own 'thoughts' by means of language.

DS:


I could think about your sentence without words because the words in your sentence represent tangible things. And I made the claim multiple times that there's no way of knowing anyone else's thoughts (posts #35 and #40).

I am not sure that this is relevant, but then I suspect you can't say either, since neither of us knows what form these occult 'thoughts' of yours take. It's a bit like someone claiming to talk to 'god' in their head, or that they have an 'invisible' friend. There is no way this can be confirmed. For all I know, you could be making stuff up.


Indeed there are no identical thoughts ever, anywhere.

How can you possibly know this?

In fact, there are countless identical thoughts. Want some examples?


And I already proved your sentence could be thought without words.

I beg to differ. You provided a set of images -- and images are not thoughts.


Because its in its original form. My thoughts are not expressions of my thoughts, this would lead to infinite regress and get us no where.

But, we still do not know what form these esoteric 'thoughts' of yours take. Either you can't say, or you won't.


Haha! You are so silly! I never made that claim or anything close to it.

We can do without the personal abuse, I think.

In fact, it is a direct consequence of what you have said.


I believe dictionaries are EXTREMELY useful tools in understanding meanings of words and understanding how words are used in language. Dictionaries are a hard copy of the collective understanding of words used in a shared language, they are essential in language use. I use them all the time.

In other words, I was right when I said: "dictionaries are just the 'expression' of someone else's thought about 'thought', according to you". Unless you believe that those who compiled the dictionary did not think about what they were doing.


Umm...ok?...The only proof I have (outside of my own experience) would be to ask others where their thoughts are and see what they say. You have yet to say where your thoughts are since they are not in your head/brain/mind. I think everyone is waiting to hear the answer to that...

The Greek used to think that their thoughts were in the lungs (or in the diaphragm).

My thoughts can be all over the place. They can be on paper, on your screen, with my loved ones, far away (if I day dream), on the other side of the universe...

You might say that some of these are metaphorical, but then maybe your use of similar words is too.

The thing is that the word "thought" and it cognates (like "thinking", etc.) have many and varied uses. Super-gluing it to one particular use is, I would submit, misleading.


I do not believe you have done that, so again if you could define what you mean by "thought" we can get on the same page faster. Are you arguing for the metaphorical use of the word "thought" here? Because that's what appears to be happening. Your speech/writing alone in those cases is an expression of thought. So where do your thoughts manifest themselves if not in your head/brain/mind?

As I noted above, there are so many different uses of this word that I will not even try to define it. Anyway, I do not need to. All I have to do is give you examples of its perfectly proper use, as I have done, to show that thoughts can be in many places, but not in the head.


Are you serious? Really? I don't believe you are serious. If your thoughts don't exist anywhere, then they don't exist at all.

I am deadly serious. Thoughts can no more exist anywhere than can numbers, or the centre of mass of the galaxy, or the average family.


I know where my thoughts are, and it's not "nowhere".

So, in which part of your head are they located?


Are your dreams "nowhere" too?

Indeed.


Actually, I didn't use any to show it, I used a picture. If you look back at the original post (#25), you'd see that. In that post, I quoted you and said "Actually I can. I drew out a picture to show it:" and then posted the picture (I had to put that sentence in there so that in the forum setting the context is more easily understood). Since that post I've been using language to respond to you because like I've said a few times now: our only means of communication is through a forum...

So, we still don't know -- unless you are now saying that your thoughts are 'pictures'. But, as Jerry Fodor noted:


If the mind is in the inference-drawing line of work, there must be symbols in which it formulates its premises and conclusions; there are no inferences without a medium (or media) in which to couch them. That matters because you can't say just anything you like in whatever kind of symbols you choose. Pictures can't express negative or contingent propositions -- [such as] it's not raining, or if it's raining that will spoil the picnic. But negative and conditional thoughts play a central role in the kinds of inference that minds routinely carry out. ([For example] it's certainly not Queen Victoria; if it's certainly not Queen Victoria, then perhaps it's Dr Livingstone. So perhaps it's Dr Livingstone.).

Fodor, J. (2003), 'More Peanuts. Review Of Thinking Without Words By José Luis Bermúdez', London Review of Books 25, 19, 09/10/2003, pp.16-17.

Pictures do not hang together, and can say nothing -- any more than a collection of objects can say something (unless it's part of a pre-arranged code, and even then that will require a language to interpret it).


I know I have thoughts as much as I know I exist. Nothing's ever proven my existence is real, so nothing's ever proven my thoughts are real either. But don't worry, I still get along everyday without any problems. I have yet to personally run into a non-existence problem, just as I have yet run into a problem of knowing when I am or am not thinking. On a more serious note, if you meditate (or have ever meditated successfully, ie 'clearing your mind'/brain/head/thoughts/whatever you want to call it) its easy to know when you are having thoughts and when you are not. If you've never tried it, I highly recommend it.

I was of course, referring to your idiosyncratic 'thoughts', not the sort of thoughts that the rest of us have in language.

And, I have never meditated, nor will I ever. Forgive me for saying this, but: "Buddhist cr*p!".


When you keep your thoughts to yourself, where do you put them? And what is this "interlocutors" that you speak of? It sounds like a fun word.

You seem to think that thoughts are like keys, pets or books, which can be put somewhere. When I keep my thoughts to myself I just do not express an opinion. That's it.

"Interlocutors" -- I thought you liked to use dictionaries! An interlocutor is someone with whom you are conversing.


Yes, you have noted all of this but have yet to prove it (I do agree and acknowledge that "we are taught in a public arena what" words mean, along with learning word meanings through reading books, magazines, newspapers, and dictionaries).

What is there to prove to you, if you agree?!


You can communicate thoughts without using language: music, paintings, sculptures, dances, etc. Sometimes saying thoughts can make them easier to understand, but its not limited to language. Which means that thoughts are both linguistic and not linguistic, and can expressed in many many ways.

Certainly one can communicate all sorts of things by these means, but I deny you can communicate a thought, unless these artefacts contain a coded message of some sort.

But, even you will have to use language to tell us what is communicated by these artefacts, and then it will be open to others to question whether what you say is correct. And how might that be settled? But, if there were a thought here, it would be possible to settle this question.


I never denied language use. I only denied that all thoughts have to be in the form of language and I already proved they didn't. Maybe you are just one of those people whose entire thoughts are limited to language, if that's the case I'm truly sorry because there is a lot you are missing out on.

Once more, the material you allege I am 'missing out on' -- if this amounts to anything, you will be able to express it in language. If not, then why allege that there is anything there for me to 'miss out on'.

Again, if you will forgive me, this sounds like the sort of comment the god-botherers come out with: 'You don't know what you are missing'. But then, they can't say either.


And it makes me wonder, what do you do when you encounter an object or experience that you don't have words to describe?

Like what? [Now, you will [i]have to use language here to tell me, which will rather ruin your point, I fear.]


I don't think so, but it would be helpful to me if you pointed out where so that I can try to avoid such distasteful confusion later on. Also, your claim that your thoughts are nowhere appears to be dualist, as it separates your thoughts from your physical body.

Well, we can see the beginnings of this already in your reference to intangibles (these obscure 'thoughts' of yours). On the one hand, we have material events, and on the other we have these occult 'thoughts', which can't be material, hence they must be something else. That is Step Two. What else can they be? Well they exist in your head, and they are not material. So, they are immaterial. Step Three.

I hope you can see where that is going...


The only difference I could spot was that Fodor claimed a different language for thoughts while Wittgenstein claimed the language for thoughts is just the individual's public language.

In fact, Wittgenstein, like me, claimed that the word 'thought' has many uses, all of which appear in a public language.

[DesertShark]

I am sorry, this is a distinction with no difference.
So then in your mind 'thinking' and 'introspection' are the same thing?


But an image is not a thought. And you have yet to tell us what form these mysterious 'thoughts' of yours take.
How do you know an image is not a thought? You have yet to prove that. Actually I did...images, among other things like sounds and music.



It shouldn't be jumbled as I quoted us both directly and gave you the post number for easy reference. There was also nothing to interpret, I was laying out the discussion between us where I proved your original claim in post #15 wrong, and in proving that claim wrong you no longer have validation for your final claim on that post (that thoughts and language are intertwined). I'll re-post it here with direct quotes from the posts instead of italicizing them (bold added by me this time through):

No, I originally said I could prove your claim wrong and I did. The conversation went like this:
You said that no one could think your sentence without words (post #15):

Here's an experiment: say the following words "I chased a bug around a tree; I'll have his blood he knows I will."

Now, without using any words at all, think the same thought.

Can't do it?

No, neither can anyone else.

That shows that thought and language are intimately connected, whatever current trendy theories in cognitive science might say.
I did and used an example (the image I posted) to show that it was possible (post #25):

Actually I can. I drew out a picture to show it:

http://s408.photobucket.com/albums/pp162/NeverLostDesertShark/?action=view&current=thoughtexperiment.jpghttp://i408.photobucket.com/albums/pp162/NeverLostDesertShark/thoughtexperiment.jpg

You then claimed my picture was subject to multiple interpretations, while your sentence was not (post #26 & 30):

Thanks for that DS, but, as you should know, pictures are open to an indeterminate number of interpretations.

Second, as I also noted, the images you visulaised are all open to alternative interpretations (whereas the sentence I gave is not). That is enough to show the two are not at all the same.
I pointed out that while that was true, your sentence was also subject to multiple interpretations (post #35):

Actually, your sentence was open to interpretation as well. Who knew exactly what you meant by "have his blood." Did you mean bleed him to death? Drink his blood? Eat his blood in a stew? Smear his blood all over your body? Where his blood on your face and do a little dance? Also, what type of bug? What type of tree? What type of blood do you mean (ie vertebrate blood or insect blood which is not actually blood but hemolymph)? Your sentence, along with most sentences and words, have multiple interpretations.
And then you said "Maybe so" (post #36):

Maybe so, but you will note that even you try to resolve such ambiguities by the use of yet more language.
And then I said "There's no "maybe" in that - yes your sentence has multiple interpretations." (post#40):

I wasn't trying to resolve ambiguities in your language, I was pointing them out. In the context of our ability to communicate with one another on a forum, language is the only way. You claimed my image had multiple interpretations and I was showing you that your sentence did as well. There's no "maybe" in that - yes your sentence has multiple interpretations.
Hopefully that clears up any "jumbling" that may have appeared to happen.


Indeed, but any interpretation of an ambiguous sentence will be given in language. Same with 'images'.
That misses the point. The entire point of my argument was that one could think without words, and I showed it. All of this side stuff is irrelevant.


This misses the point: you can only interpret your own 'thoughts' by means of language.
It doesn't miss the point, you're now bringing up a new one. You have not shown that (and the original claim had nothing to do with interpretation, it had to do with thinking); and your example where you tried to prove that thoughts had to be word-form, I showed that you were wrong and even gave an example.


I am not sure that this is relevant, but then I suspect you can't say either, since neither of us knows what form these occult 'thoughts' of yours take. It's a bit like someone claiming to talk to 'god' in their head, or that they have an 'invisible' friend. There is no way this can be confirmed. For all I know, you could be making stuff up.
It was relevant because it was a response to your claim (from post #36): "How could you then 'think' about my sentence and not use words -- it contains words!"
What do you mean by "occult thoughts"? I have already given examples of thoughts that aren't in linguistic form, prior to this post. Indeed there is no way of proving that anyone has (or has had) exactly the same thought(s) as anyone else, which is why I said that it was not possible.


How can you possibly know this?

In fact, there are countless identical thoughts. Want some examples?
Yes, please give me some examples and the evidence backing it.


I beg to differ. You provided a set of images -- and images are not thoughts.
You continually make this claim, but have not proven it and in doing so you have continually presented a circular argument. The argument goes like this: you claim that thought can only be in linguistic form. Then when someone gives an example of a thought that was not linguistic, you say images are not thoughts. You negate anything that disproves your premise without proving it to be wrong. Your negation means nothing if you do not prove the claim to be false. Religious people do this a lot.


But, we still do not know what form these esoteric 'thoughts' of yours take. Either you can't say, or you won't.
I've said it multiple times. Remember when we talked about paintings, music, sculptures, and dances? Those are just a few examples of non-linguistic thoughts that have been in expressed in a non-linguistic form.


In fact, it is a direct consequence of what you have said.
I don't see that, could you explain? Also, could you define 'thought'? When I looked it up on dictionary.com I could not find one definition that limits it to language, so I guess I'd like to know where you get the meaning of the word from. I did however, find definitions on there that said "to visualize" was a definition of 'thought'.


In other words, I was right when I said: "dictionaries are just the 'expression' of someone else's thought about 'thought', according to you". Unless you believe that those who compiled the dictionary did not think about what they were doing.
"Dictionaries are a hard copy of the collective understanding of words used in a shared language, they are essential in language use." That was my claim, which appears to be similar to your claim. I don't think anyone would deny that and I never tried to deny what a dictionary was. I also don't see how this is relevant to the conversation, but if it makes you feel better to be right about something I guess that's cool.


The Greek used to think that their thoughts were in the lungs (or in the diaphragm).

My thoughts can be all over the place. They can be on paper, on your screen, with my loved ones, far away (if I day dream), on the other side of the universe...

You might say that some of these are metaphorical, but then maybe your use of similar words is too.

The thing is that the word "thought" and it cognates (like "thinking", etc.) have many and varied uses. Super-gluing it to one particular use is, I would submit, misleading.
This sounds like a dualist argument to me...where processes of the body are attributed to things outside the body...


As I noted above, there are so many different uses of this word that I will not even try to define it. Anyway, I do not need to. All I have to do is give you examples of its perfectly proper use, as I have done, to show that thoughts can be in many places, but not in the head.
That's a terribly bad cop out and I wish you wouldn't, but perhaps you also looked up the definition of thought on dictionary.com and discovered that your definition of it was not there. Why do you feel you don't need to? Your belief in the meaning of the word is not a common understanding of it, so you should define it. I wasn't asking for a definition of thought to show where it was, I was asking for its definition so that you could realize you were limiting yourself with your belief that thought is only in linguistic form. And like I've said, putting your thoughts outside your body makes you a dualist.


So, in which part of your head are they located?
I guess it would depend upon the thought. I can give you multiple links to websites that explain the areas of the brain if you would like (note: these were not determined by brain scans, but by cutting people's heads open and probing around). A simple example would be getting my arm to move, which would involve many parts of the brain: motor cortex, cerebellum, proprioception, and some other areas (like I said I can get into it more detail, but we use multiple parts of our brains all the time and its relatively complex and I don't have know everything about it, just basic stuff).


Indeed.
Does your soul or god make you have dreams then? Or does your brain (like everyone else)?


So, we still don't know -- unless you are now saying that your thoughts are 'pictures'. But, as Jerry Fodor noted:

Fodor, J. (2003), 'More Peanuts. Review Of Thinking Without Words By José Luis Bermúdez', London Review of Books 25, 19, 09/10/2003, pp.16-17.
I think that post 1st post was pretty clear, and that picture did not contain words. Also, that picture came from an image (thought) from my brain. I also never claimed that all thoughts were in non-linguistic form and even acknowledged that some thoughts are in linguistic form. Not everything said by Fodor there is true, I don't feel like getting into because its getting away from the original point: proof that not all thought is linguistic. But if you need me to debate this particular philospher, I'll need to read more of his work and I don't have the time for it, so it may be awhile before that can happen.


Pictures do not hang together, and can say nothing -- any more than a collection of objects can say something (unless it's part of a pre-arranged code, and even then that will require a language to interpret it).
Have you ever watched a cartoon without the sound on or looked at a comic strip that didn't have dialogue?


I was of course, referring to your idiosyncratic 'thoughts', not the sort of thoughts that the rest of us have in language.

And, I have never meditated, nor will I ever. Forgive me for saying this, but: "Buddhist cr*p!".
My non-linguistic thoughts are not limited to me, as you appear to be the only person who cannot think without words. Most people don't need language for all of their thoughts, ask around. If you've never cleared your mind of all thoughts, then how do you know when you are and aren't thinking? Also, call it what you will, but you'd benefit tremendously from it and probably feel a lot better if you tried it. Because if you can't control your mind and your thoughts, what good are they?


You seem to think that thoughts are like keys, pets or books, which can be put somewhere. When I keep my thoughts to myself I just do not express an opinion. That's it.
No, I don't think of them in such away. I'm not a dualist, so I know my thoughts are from my brain. And since you have only been making a dualist argument for where your thoughts exist, I wanted to know where they are when you're not expressing them. Does your soul let you express them, or god?


"Interlocutors" -- I thought you liked to use dictionaries! An interlocutor is someone with whom you are conversing.
Indeed I do enjoy using dictionaries, but since you've already shown that you don't except their definitions for the words you use I wanted to know what you meant by it so as not to be confused.


What is there to prove to you, if you agree?!
I agreed that we learn language through others, not that thought is only in linguistic form which is what you have yet to prove. I've already proved its not always in linguistic form and you've yet to disprove that as well. You've still got your work cut out for you.


Certainly one can communicate all sorts of things by these means, but I deny you can communicate a thought, unless these artefacts contain a coded message of some sort.
You've just contradictored yourself: you agreed that 'things' (which includes thoughts) can be communicated in non-linguistic form through these mediums I've mentioned multiple times and then you said that that you deny you can communicate a thought using them. What "things" are is the artist communicating if not her/his thoughts?


But, even you will have to use language to tell us what is communicated by these artefacts, and then it will be open to others to question whether what you say is correct. And how might that be settled? But, if there were a thought here, it would be possible to settle this question.
Just because using language to get to the bottom of a meaning of something is easier sometimes then not using it, does not prove that all thought is linguistic; it just shows that we are limited to language sometimes in communication, which is beyond the scope of the original argument. It appears as if you're grabbing at non-relevant things to keep your argument alive.


Once more, the material you allege I am 'missing out on' -- if this amounts to anything, you will be able to express it in language. If not, then why allege that there is anything there for me to 'miss out on'.

Again, if you will forgive me, this sounds like the sort of comment the god-botherers come out with: 'You don't know what you are missing'. But then, they can't say either.
That's not true, as you've already agreed (I'm referring to the paintings etc discussion). I don't see how this follows (the first two sentences in this quote), could you please elaborate? I already think you believe in god and a soul based on your dualist claims that you constantly put forth, so I'm not surprised that you continually try to bring god into this. Since god doesn't exist, I'm not going to get into this with you, go to the religion section if you want to talk god.


Like what? [Now, you will [I]have to use language here to tell me, which will rather ruin your point, I fear.]
Using language to describe things does not ruin my point (which again was that not all thought is in linguistic form, and I've already proven it and you have yet to disprove it - just trying to make sure you're up to speed). Also, since I don't know where you are, where you've been and what you've seen, I can't give you an example of something you've never encountered. I was trying to get you to think about the first time you encountered something new. If you don't want to, don't; I really don't care.


Well, we can see the beginnings of this already in your reference to intangibles (these obscure 'thoughts' of yours). On the one hand, we have material events, and on the other we have these occult 'thoughts', which can't be material, hence they must be something else. That is Step Two. What else can they be? Well they exist in your head, and they are not material. So, they are immaterial. Step Three.

I hope you can see where that is going...
Actually, you're the one whose been making dualist claims throughout this (and I pointed them out so you'd know). "These obscure 'thoughts" are not intangible, as I gave a very simple example of it (see post #15). If they were intangible, I wouldn't have been able to share it. What are these "Step"s you are referring to? In fact, since they (my thoughts) are from my brain (in my head, etc) they are material. Your claim that they (your thoughts) are outside your body makes them immaterial. This is an important distinction to note.


In fact, Wittgenstein, like me, claimed that the word 'thought' has many uses, all of which appear in a public language.
So then you would agree with the dictionary definitions of the word thought? Since the dictionary provides the public understanding of words.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

DS:


So then in your mind 'thinking' and 'introspection' are the same thing?

In fact, I deny we have 'minds'.

Moreover, and as I noted before, there are far too many and varied uses of the word 'thought' and its cognates to identify it with any one thing, or process -- except that they all imply the use of language.


How do you know an image is not a thought?

Because the equation of the two does not appear in our ordinary talk about thought, but has to be imposed on it by someone with a theory of some sorts (or ideas based on Eastern religion). Moreover, as I noted before, images are dead, and can no more supply the background or the content of thought than a table, a chair or a mountain can.


Actually I did...images, among other things like sounds and music.

And why are these thought? Because you say so?


Hopefully that clears up any "jumbling" that may have appeared to happen.

Not really, since the post I was referring to was all jumbled up.


That misses the point. The entire point of my argument was that one could think without words, and I showed it. All of this side stuff is irrelevant.

Well, you keep saying this, and much as I'd like to take your word for it, we are going to need more than just your say-so.

And the comment about translation into language being necessary in order to clear up ambiguity is not irrelevant, since it shows that language is the medium of thought, even for you. Here is why:

You alleged that the images you drew represented a thought. I said it was ambiguous, so it cannot represent anything until it was disambiguated. You replied that this is also the case with language, and I retorted that both sorts of ambiguity require language to provide clarity. In that case, language is the medium of thought. Anything else is far to vague and ambiguous to call a thought.


It doesn't miss the point, you're now bringing up a new one. You have not shown that (and the original claim had nothing to do with interpretation, it had to do with thinking); and your example where you tried to prove that thoughts had to be word-form, I showed that you were wrong and even gave an example.

But it can't be a thought until we are clear what it is, and we need language for that. So the original 'thought', your 'example', had no content until it was provided one by language, in which case it is not a thought until then.


What do you mean by "occult thoughts"? I have already given examples of thoughts that aren't in linguistic form, prior to this post. Indeed there is no way of proving that anyone has (or has had) exactly the same thought(s) as anyone else, which is why I said that it was not possible.

'Occult' means 'hidden' and not subject to any sort of check. And your 'example' of a 'thought' turns out not to be a thought, or not to be a languageless one, since it requires language to tell what thought it is. In that case, whatever it was, it wasn't a languageless thought, since it wasn't a thought to begin with.

And it is possible to show that two people can have the same thought. But, this is a point you have already conceded, since you claimed your 'example' of the thought expressed by "I chased a bug around a tree, I'll have his blood he knows I will" was that very thought, that is, that they were the same. If now you are saying that it wasn't, and nothing can be the same as any other thought, then we are still waiting a genuine example of the thought expressed by "I chased a bug around a tree, I'll have his blood he knows I will".

You can't have it both ways: claiming on the one hand that no two thoughts can be identical but then on the other giving us an 'example' you said was the same as the thought expressed by that sentence.

Either no two thoughts are identical (and we still await a genuine example of the thought expressed in that sentence), or two thoughts can be identical.

Which is it to be?


Yes, please give me some examples and the evidence backing it.

Actually, that was a trap, since, if you are asking for an example, and for evidence, then we must share the same thought about one or both of these when I produce them, or we would fail to be talking about the same things.

So, even you believe that there can be at least two identical thoughts, or you would not have asked.

Anyway, we already know you accept this idea -- as my comments earlier showed with respect to your 'example' of the thought expressed by "I chased a bug around a tree, I'll have his blood he knows I will."

Here are several more examples:

1) 'John is sat next to James', and 'James is sat next to John'.

2) 'I have eight apples' and 'I have twice as many as you, and you have four apples'.

3) 'That glass is half full' and 'That glass is half empty' (said of the same glass).

4) 'The Nile is longer than the Thames' and 'The Thames is shorter than the Nile'.

There are countless examples like this of a principle you have already (inadvertently) conceded that you accept.


You continually make this claim, but have not proven it and in doing so you have continually presented a circular argument. The argument goes like this: you claim that thought can only be in linguistic form. Then when someone gives an example of a thought that was not linguistic, you say images are not thoughts. You negate anything that disproves your premise without proving it to be wrong. Your negation means nothing if you do not prove the claim to be false.

It's not circular at all, as my comments at the top show. Thoughts may contain images, but they cannot be images, any more than a can of beans is beans.


Religious people do this a lot.

Look, if we you are going to make snide remarks, be prepared for this discussion to turn nasty.


I've said it multiple times. Remember when we talked about paintings, music, sculptures, and dances? Those are just a few examples of non-linguistic thoughts that have been in expressed in a non-linguistic form.

You are confusing objects and activities with thoughts now.

All of these are ambiguous, and require the use of language to tell us what the alleged 'thoughts' are, in which case, it is language that supplies the missing ingredient, and determines for us the thought in each case.


I don't see that, could you explain? Also, could you define 'thought'? When I looked it up on dictionary.com I could not find one definition that limits it to language, so I guess I'd like to know where you get the meaning of the word from. I did however, find definitions on there that said "to visualize" was a definition of 'thought'.

I tried to explain this in my next comment.

Once more, dictionaries cannot tell us how to use words we already understand, nor can they settle philosophical disputes -- whatever they tell us is subject to scrutiny. So, the 'definitions' they give (but they are not even that, they are largely attempts at providing rough synonyms) do not rule out the sorts of criticisms I have levelled in this thread.


"Dictionaries are a hard copy of the collective understanding of words used in a shared language, they are essential in language use." That was my claim, which appears to be similar to your claim. I don't think anyone would deny that and I never tried to deny what a dictionary was. I also don't see how this is relevant to the conversation, but if it makes you feel better to be right about something I guess that's cool.

They were in fact part of an attempt by sections of the bourgeoisie to impose control on language, and thus they reflect many of their ideological prejudices, among which is the Christian idea that we have souls, and thus that thought takes place in the head. So, you'll forgive me if I take much of what they contain with a pinch of salt. I only use them to tell me the meaning of a word I have never heard before, or check a spelling, and that, for a socialist, should be their only use.


This sounds like a dualist argument to me...where processes of the body are attributed to things outside the body...

That works only on the assumption that thoughts are what you say they are, but our ordinary use of language tells a different story. So, it's not the least bit dualist. In fact, your use of this word has dualist implications.


That's a terribly bad cop out and I wish you wouldn't, but perhaps you also looked up the definition of thought on dictionary.com and discovered that your definition of it was not there. Why do you feel you don't need to? Your belief in the meaning of the word is not a common understanding of it, so you should define it. I wasn't asking for a definition of thought to show where it was, I was asking for its definition so that you could realize you were limiting yourself with your belief that thought is only in linguistic form. And like I've said, putting your thoughts outside your body makes you a dualist.

Why do you refer to my 'definition' when I not only haven't given one, I repudiated the very idea? I have given you perfectly ordinary uses of this word. Of course, you can reject them if you want, but that will not change how the majority of us use this word.


I guess it would depend upon the thought. I can give you multiple links to websites that explain the areas of the brain if you would like (note: these were not determined by brain scans, but by cutting people's heads open and probing around). A simple example would be getting my arm to move, which would involve many parts of the brain: motor cortex, cerebellum, proprioception, and some other areas (like I said I can get into it more detail, but we use multiple parts of our brains all the time and its relatively complex and I don't have know everything about it, just basic stuff).

As that other thread has shown, thoughts cannot in fact be localised. But, I note you need a theory to tell you where your thoughts are. So, you do not know.


Does your soul or god make you have dreams then? Or does your brain (like everyone else)?

I dream, my brain does not make me do anything. Sounds like you think the brain is some sort of agent that can order you about the place. And the comment about 'god' etc., is unnecessary.


I think that post 1st post was pretty clear, and that picture did not contain words. Also, that picture came from an image (thought) from my brain. I also never claimed that all thoughts were in non-linguistic form and even acknowledged that some thoughts are in linguistic form. Not everything said by Fodor there is true, I don't feel like getting into because its getting away from the original point: proof that not all thought is linguistic. But if you need me to debate this particular philospher, I'll need to read more of his work and I don't have the time for it, so it may be awhile before that can happen.

His point stands independently of his theory -- it is based on what all of us have to do when we think. I would just go further and say that all thought is linguistic.


Have you ever watched a cartoon without the sound on or looked at a comic strip that didn't have dialogue?

Yes, so?


My non-linguistic thoughts are not limited to me, as you appear to be the only person who cannot think without words. Most people don't need language for all of their thoughts, ask around. If you've never cleared your mind of all thoughts, then how do you know when you are and aren't thinking? Also, call it what you will, but you'd benefit tremendously from it and probably feel a lot better if you tried it. Because if you can't control your mind and your thoughts, what good are they?'

Most people believe in horoscopes, but what does that prove? However, in their everyday use of language, these individuals show that they agree with me. Now, if they also hold odd beliefs about 'thought' on top of this, then that just conforms that people hold peculiar ideas.

And I am not the only person who thinks this; it is in fact an important part of Analytic Philosophy, still hotly debated in the literature. I can give you references if you want.

And I have never been dead, but I know I am alive, so I do not know why you said this: "If you've never cleared your mind of all thoughts, then how do you know when you are and aren't thinking?" Do you have to be dead to know that you are living? No. Well I do not have to 'clear my head' to know when I am thinking.

And, I'd appreciate it if you stopped preaching Buddhist ideas at me (in fact, you can be restricted for that here); I no more respect you for it than I would if a Christian tried to convert me.

I am in fact happy to be worse off (that is, if I am worse off, which I deny) and be without these mystical ideas to screw with my head.


No, I don't think of them in such away.

But your words in fact suggest this; here is what you said:


When you keep your thoughts to yourself, where do you put them?

This suggests you do think that thoughts are like objects.


Indeed I do enjoy using dictionaries, but since you've already shown that you don't except their definitions for the words you use I wanted to know what you meant by it so as not to be confused.

But I pointed out several posts ago that among the only genuine uses there are for dictionaries is to tell you the meaning of words you have never encountered before.


I agreed that we learn language through others, not that thought is only in linguistic form which is what you have yet to prove.

In that case, none of us taught ourselves what 'thought' meant. We were all inducted into a speech community that uses this word in the many ways that I have indicated. Naturally, this on its own does not prove that thought is solely linguistic, but everything you were taught about thought as it is used in language was linguistic. If now you want to add to the meaning of this word your own idiosyncratic sense, that is up to you. But then you will struggle to make yourself understood, as we have seen is the case in this thread.


You've just contradictored [???] yourself: you agreed that 'things' (which includes thoughts) can be communicated in non-linguistic form through these mediums I've mentioned multiple times and then you said that that you deny you can communicate a thought using them. What "things" are is the artist communicating if not her/his thoughts?

I have not contradicted myself, if that is what you meant. Where have I admitted what you say? What I have said is that the alleged 'thoughts' you say say are in music, etc., are only thoughts when they are interpreted in language. Anything else, over and above this, if it is communicated, might be part of a code (that is just a suggestion!) -- but even that will require language to make its message clear.


Just because using language to get to the bottom of a meaning of something is easier sometimes then not using it, does not prove that all thought is linguistic; it just shows that we are limited to language sometimes in communication, which is beyond the scope of the original argument. It appears as if you're grabbing at non-relevant things to keep your argument alive.

But, if such thoughts can only be made manifest in language, following upon an interpretation, then language is the key to thought, as I I said. Otherwise, the alleged 'thought' has no content, and so cannot be a thought (since it is not about anything).


That's not true, as you've already agreed (I'm referring to the paintings etc discussion). I don't see how this follows (the first two sentences in this quote), could you please elaborate? I already think you believe in god and a soul based on your dualist claims that you constantly put forth, so I'm not surprised that you continually try to bring god into this. Since god doesn't exist, I'm not going to get into this with you, go to the religion section if you want to talk god.

Look, sunshine, you are beginning to piss me off. I have been a militant atheist for longer than most RevLefters have been alive. So you can shove this talk.

Your talk about what I am allegedly 'missing' is patronising and offensive, too. Cut it out.


Using language to describe things does not ruin my point (which again was that not all thought is in linguistic form, and I've already proven it and you have yet to disprove it - just trying to make sure you're up to speed). Also, since I don't know where you are, where you've been and what you've seen, I can't give you an example of something you've never encountered. I was trying to get you to think about the first time you encountered something new. If you don't want to, don't; I really don't care.

Well it does in fact ruin our point, for without language, your 'thoughts' are all devoid of content, and thus they are not thoughts to begin with. They seem to be some sort of vague feelings, or images, or prehensions, or affectations, or..., but not thoughts (or they'd have a content, and be about something). But, as soon as you give them content, they become thoughts, and to do that you need language. Hence, all thought is linguistic.


I can't give you an example of something you've never encountered.

If you will forgive me again, but this sounds like those who tell us that we cannot know what it is to experience 'god' until we have done so.

Hence, this is an empty gesture until you give it content --, but in order to do that, you'll have to use language.


Actually, you're the one whose been making dualist claims throughout this (and I pointed them out so you'd know). "These obscure 'thoughts" are not intangible, as I gave a very simple example of it (see post #15). If they were intangible, I wouldn't have been able to share it. What are these "Step"s you are referring to? In fact, since they (my thoughts) are from my brain (in my head, etc) they are material. Your claim that they (your thoughts) are outside your body makes them immaterial. This is an important distinction to note.

Well, as my argument above shows this is not so.

And these steps are the ones you asked for, to show how your ideas quickly collapse into dualism, and possibly even idealism.


So then you would agree with the dictionary definitions of the word thought? Since the dictionary provides the public understanding of words.

I think I have made my opinion of dictionaries perfectly clear.

[casper]

is it not obvious most of our thinking isn't in language? language is a tool, it isn't the thought. pictures, words, even abstract pictureless, wordless thoughts go though my head on a daily basis.we create our language, the language defiantly has feedback, but it isn't the primary manifestation of thought, at least for me. my best thoughts are about everything, a snapshot of the whole picture from all the prospective one can go to, a single holistic abstract manifestation of understanding, language is to limited. Those great thoughts of mine i find so hard to express for many reasons. one is the fact that it has to do with a system, a recategorization, or rather the lack of category. words are symbols for metaphors/symbols for objects that only exist in our minds. there is ultimatly no you, no i, no it, there simply is. can you think about the contures of space-time in language? sure in math and metaphors, but can you get down to what the language is describing, because all language is, is simply symbols, and as such, they stand for something else. i would hate to think how limited and inflexible the human mind would be if it relied on linguistics alone, because then the symbols would refer to nothing. thought is the binary code, the meta-lanugage. language, pictures, they are the c++, or the domain specific languages, etc.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Thank you Casper, but it is clear that you haven't read this thread where these points have been dealt with.

However, I notice you have to use language to tell us the good news that language is rather limited. Try to have the thoughts you expressed above, but without the use of a single word.

Indeed, try to have these thoughts without language:

1) There are more than 98,235,467,200,998,345,762,836 grains of sand in the Sahara Desert, but less than 45,678,923,004,772,666 in the Gobi Desert.

2) Some who admire many of those who do not despise themselves often avoid sitting opposite any who criticise those who claim occasional membership of the minority break-away faction of the Socrates Appreciation Society, but only on alternate days in winter months of the year, or so I was told by those who did not make it to their annual outing.

It does not matter whether these are true or false, they represent thoughts you could not have without language.

By the way:


thought is the binary code

This can't be right, since codes require a source language, an object language and a translation manual. That would make thought dependent on language, contrary to your claim.

[benhur]

All thinking is visual. It's only communication that could be verbal, or in other forms. But thinking is always in the form of images, not words. If we observe our thoughts, it should become evident. Whatever the thought, it's usually in the form of a picture, to which we give a certain name, thereby mistaking the whole thing for a verbal process. But the truth is, every thought exists as a picture, and our own thoughts are evidence to this.

This is so obvious (and an experience felt by all people, if they care to observe their thoughts) that it doesn't need an explanation. Most people who argue otherwise are simply doing so for the sake of arguing, or to annoy other people.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BenHur:


All thinking is visual.

How do you know?

[This would imply that blind people can't think!]

Contrary to you, I look at how we actually use the word 'thought' -- and we do so in many and varied ways -- to try to understand what we mean by it.


But thinking is always in the form of images, not words.

Images are dead (whereas our use of words allows us to think), and they cannot be the meaning of words. If they were it would mean that all words were names (which they aren't) and it would make language learning impossible.

[I can explain why if you want to know, but there is a clue to this in what follows.]


Whatever the thought, it's usually in the form of a picture, to which we give a certain name, thereby mistaking the whole thing for a verbal process. But the truth is, every thought exists as a picture, and our own thoughts are evidence to this.

Ok, try and picture these thoughts:

1) There are more than 324,456,723,009,243,236 grains of sand in the Sahara desert.

2) 1.2345600567 is greater than 1.2345600566.

3) Something is better than nothing.

4) Atlantis does not exist.

5) Pictures cannot determine the meaning of words.

6) It's not raining on the Moon.

Language is far richer in its expressive capacity than any image could possibly be.

Moreover, the stringing of images together cannot be a thought, any more than a list can be a thought. What, for example, is the thought expressed by these words, or the images/pictures they supposedly represent:

1) London, Lenin, Amazon, Venus, Socialist Worker, Coronation Street, Tony Benn, Proxima Centauri.

2) Female, glass, redness, anger, jealousy, knowledge, change, cause, honesty, eigenvector, humanity, isomorphism.

3) John, Michael, Rachel, Susan.

Thought needs what we call articulation, that is they need words that do not function as names to connect them. So, 3) can become a thought if it is articlated in the following way:

4) John gave the papers to Michael who sold them to Rachel and Susan.

And, not just any collection of words makes sense; it requires syntax/grammar to put them in order. So, the following is just a jumble:

5) The John papers to gave Michael them to who sold Rachel Susan and.

If thougths were just images/pictures, this would make sense, but it doesn't. And that is because there is no syntax or grammar in pictures/images.

Indeed, what is the image/picture of any or all of the following?

7) Of; but; and; courage; nothing; everything; equal to; image...


This is so obvious (and an experience felt by all people, if they care to observe their thoughts) that it doesn't need an explanation. Most people who argue otherwise are simply doing so for the sake of arguing, or to annoy other people.

Not only is it not obvious, it is far too confused even to be counted as erroneous, as the above shows.

[benhur]

Rosa,

Most of your points are made on the unproven assumption that word=thought, hence the circular reasoning in your argument. In the examples you gave, what's the proof that they are all thoughts at all? They are words, and nothing more. But you've already assumed without evidence that word=thought, and proceeded on that basis. What you need is a little honesty.:)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BenHur:


Most of your points are made on the unproven assumption that word=thought, hence the circular reasoning in your argument. In the examples you gave, what's the proof that they are all thoughts at all? They are words, and nothing more. But you've already assumed without evidence that word=thought, and proceeded on that basis. What you need is a little honesty.

Even if you were right (which you aren't), the points I make show that thoughts, whatever they are, can't be images/pictures.

But nowhere do I argue this:


word=thought

Instead of me needing honesty, you need to learn to read.

And you just assume that:


All thinking is visual.

While I at least produced arguments to show it can't be.

Moreover, several of our uses of the word 'thought' tell us that thought is linguistic:

1) I have just put my thoughts in my latest letter to you.

2) I read her post and it expressed my thoughts entirely.

3) The bosses offer made me think "Why do we have to accept a pay cut!"

4) He could not rest until he had put his thoughts on paper.

And so on.

You might also like to see what Marx and Engels thought:


For philosophers, one of the most difficult tasks is to descend from the world of thought to the actual world. Language is the immediate actuality of thought. Just as philosophers have given thought an independent existence, so they had to make language into an independent realm. This is the secret of philosophical language, in which thoughts in the form of words have their own content....

Bold added.

German Ideology, p.118.

It's a good job they knew some language or other, or we would not now have their thoughts.

So, Marx, Engels and Rosa all agree.

[DesertShark]

In fact, I deny we have 'minds'.

Moreover, and as I noted before, there are far too many and varied uses of the word 'thought' and its cognates to identify it with any one thing, or process -- except that they all imply the use of language.
Ok...so then in your opinion 'thought' and 'introspection' are the same thing? (see isn't language a pain in the ass?)
If "there are too many and varied uses of the word 'thought'" then how do you know what it means? And how do you prove that your meaning is the sole meaning of the word? Most people use dictionaries to prove the meaning of words.


Because the equation of the two does not appear in our ordinary talk about thought, but has to be imposed on it by someone with a theory of some sorts (or ideas based on Eastern religion). Moreover, as I noted before, images are dead, and can no more supply the background or the content of thought than a table, a chair or a mountain can.
Actually, I'd say that thought only being linguistic "does not appear in our ordinary talk about thought, but has to be imposed on it by someone with a theory of some sorts." This is the first time you've made the claim "images are dead." How can something that was never alive, be dead? And I don't think the rest of that sentence is true; have you ever thought about a table or chair or mountain (not the word, but the object)? They could stand alone in a thought and be the sole content of thought.


And why are these thought? Because you say so?
Because I experience them the same way as the thoughts that you say thoughts are.


Not really, since the post I was referring to was all jumbled up.
Well then, if you want to clear it up for yourself, you could go through and look at the individual posts and find those things (since I gave the post numbers).


Well, you keep saying this, and much as I'd like to take your word for it, we are going to need more than just your say-so.

And the comment about translation into language being necessary in order to clear up ambiguity is not irrelevant, since it shows that language is the medium of thought, even for you. Here is why:

You alleged that the images you drew represented a thought. I said it was ambiguous, so it cannot represent anything until it was disambiguated. You replied that this is also the case with language, and I retorted that both sorts of ambiguity require language to provide clarity. In that case, language is the medium of thought. Anything else is far to vague and ambiguous to call a thought.
That does not prove language is the medium of thought, it proves that language is one medium for communication. I gave an example in response to your claim, then you deny its an example and claim that its just my word. Its not "my say-so," I gave you an example.


But it can't be a thought until we are clear what it is, and we need language for that. So the original 'thought', your 'example', had no content until it was provided one by language, in which case it is not a thought until then.
Can you elaborate on this, as its an interesting point. I never knew that my thoughts weren't thoughts until they were clear to everyone else or just someone else. This would negate your point that you can keep your thoughts to yourself.


'Occult' means 'hidden' and not subject to any sort of check. And your 'example' of a 'thought' turns out not to be a thought, or not to be a languageless one, since it requires language to tell what thought it is. In that case, whatever it was, it wasn't a languageless thought, since it wasn't a thought to begin with.
Nice circular argument. It does not require language to tell what the thought is, since the image itself does that.


And it is possible to show that two people can have the same thought. But, this is a point you have already conceded, since you claimed your 'example' of the thought expressed by "I chased a bug around a tree, I'll have his blood he knows I will" was that very thought, that is, that they were the same. If now you are saying that it wasn't, and nothing can be the same as any other thought, then we are still waiting a genuine example of the thought expressed by "I chased a bug around a tree, I'll have his blood he knows I will".
Ok, I'll explain myself. No one can have the exact same thought as anyone else because no two people have ever had the same set of experiences. Our experiences shape our thoughts and how we interpret the world, since they are never exactly the same, neither are the thoughts. People can have similar thoughts, but they'll never be exactly same.


You can't have it both ways: claiming on the one hand that no two thoughts can be identical but then on the other giving us an 'example' you said was the same as the thought expressed by that sentence.

Either no two thoughts are identical (and we still await a genuine example of the thought expressed in that sentence), or two thoughts can be identical.

Which is it to be?
I explained above how no two thoughts are identical. So its not having it both ways. Its recognizing that I'll never have identical thoughts to anyone else, and realizing people can have similar thoughts (which is the only way we would be able to act on collective ideas).


Actually, that was a trap, since, if you are asking for an example, and for evidence, then we must share the same thought about one or both of these when I produce them, or we would fail to be talking about the same things.

So, even you believe that there can be at least two identical thoughts, or you would not have asked.
These statements are false and I've already addressed them.


Here are several more examples:
...
There are countless examples like this of a principle you have already (inadvertently) conceded that you accept.
You already tried to get me to your game a second time, and I explained why I wouldn't. You can take the time to find the post and read my response.


Thoughts may contain images
Glad you finally see what I was getting across! (its fun taking sentences out of context isn't it? -I did it here because you did it later on in your post, and I wanted you to see how ridiculous it is)


You are confusing objects and activities with thoughts now.
No I haven't, those objects and activities are expressions of thought.


All of these are ambiguous, and require the use of language to tell us what the alleged 'thoughts' are, in which case, it is language that supplies the missing ingredient, and determines for us the thought in each case.
No they don't. Perhaps some of those would lose their meaning if someone tried to express them in words.


Once more, dictionaries cannot tell us how to use words we already understand, nor can they settle philosophical disputes -- whatever they tell us is subject to scrutiny. So, the 'definitions' they give (but they are not even that, they are largely attempts at providing rough synonyms) do not rule out the sorts of criticisms I have levelled in this thread.
I never said they could tell us how to use words, they can only tell us what words mean. If what they tell us is subject to scrutiny then we would never know what others meant by the words they use, we would never be able to use language. The words used in a language are defined in a dictionary so that all the users of the language can know what others mean by the words they use. Without a common understanding of words, we'd never be able to use language to communicate.


They were in fact part of an attempt by sections of the bourgeoisie to impose control on language, and thus they reflect many of their ideological prejudices, among which is the Christian idea that we have souls, and thus that thought takes place in the head. So, you'll forgive me if I take much of what they contain with a pinch of salt. I only use them to tell me the meaning of a word I have never heard before, or check a spelling, and that, for a socialist, should be their only use.
...Or someone realized it'd be easier to communicate with language if every word had a set meaning.


That works only on the assumption that thoughts are what you say they are, but our ordinary use of language tells a different story. So, it's not the least bit dualist. In fact, your use of this word has dualist implications.
Actually, our ordinary language use agrees with my use of the word 'thought,' not yours. You are in fact the only person I've interacted with who believes thoughts are only in linguistic form.


Why do you refer to my 'definition' when I not only haven't given one, I repudiated the very idea? I have given you perfectly ordinary uses of this word. Of course, you can reject them if you want, but that will not change how the majority of us use this word.
You've given your basic meaning of the word (ie thought is only linguistic) and I was asking for a definition so that we could communicate more clearly with each other. The majority does not use the word the way you do, which is why I asked for a definition from you.


As that other thread has shown, thoughts cannot in fact be localised. But, I note you need a theory to tell you where your thoughts are. So, you do not know.
I don't need a theory to tell me where my thoughts are. I knew where they were before I even knew there was such a theory, in fact what is this theory and who came up with it?


I dream, my brain does not make me do anything. Sounds like you think the brain is some sort of agent that can order you about the place. And the comment about 'god' etc., is unnecessary.
Well the brain of every critter with one is a central organizing place that makes coordinated responses to stimuli easier. Where do your dreams come from, if not your brain? Saying that its an agent that orders the body around is starting to get into it being separate from the body (dualism), which its not. The brain is part of the body, and like all the other parts serves a function.


Yes, so?
So...did you know what they were getting across?


Most people believe in horoscopes, but what does that prove? However, in their everyday use of language, these individuals show that they agree with me. Now, if they also hold odd beliefs about 'thought' on top of this, then that just conforms that people hold peculiar ideas.

And I am not the only person who thinks this; it is in fact an important part of Analytic Philosophy, still hotly debated in the literature. I can give you references if you want.

And I have never been dead, but I know I am alive, so I do not know why you said this: "If you've never cleared your mind of all thoughts, then how do you know when you are and aren't thinking?" Do you have to be dead to know that you are living? No. Well I do not have to 'clear my head' to know when I am thinking.
Well, if you're going to claim that most people agree with your definition then you should agree with the people using horoscopes, based on your claim. I find it interesting that you continually try to bring in supernatural ideals, but claim that you do not agree with them; why bring them up then?
Yea, I'd like to see some this debate in Analytic Philosophy.
How do you know you're alive? I said that sentence because you said somewhere prior that people always have thoughts (or something to that effect) and when I said that's not true, you asked how I knew. Well, if I have control over my thoughts, then I can have them when I want or not have them when I don't want to.


And, I'd appreciate it if you stopped preaching Buddhist ideas at me (in fact, you can be restricted for that here); I no more respect you for it than I would if a Christian tried to convert me.
Indeed, if I were in fact preaching a religion I could be restricted, but alas thats not the case. I was advocating an exercise of the mind/brain/body/whatever you want to call it, perhaps a 'thought experiment.' This exercise is not a religion.


But I pointed out several posts ago that among the only genuine uses there are for dictionaries is to tell you the meaning of words you have never encountered before.
Actually, the only genuine use for dictionaries is to get the collective understanding of a word used a given language.


In that case, none of us taught ourselves what 'thought' meant. We were all inducted into a speech community that uses this word in the many ways that I have indicated. Naturally, this on its own does not prove that thought is solely linguistic, but everything you were taught about thought as it is used in language was linguistic. If now you want to add to the meaning of this word your own idiosyncratic sense, that is up to you. But then you will struggle to make yourself understood, as we have seen is the case in this thread.
Yes, through the community and dictionaries. So because you were taught about colors using language, they only exist in linguistic form? No, exactly. Your statement lacks true justification. If I (or anyone else) wants to know what a word means in a language, they look it up in a dictionary, they don't go ask other people (and even if they did, that person would probably just look it up in a dictionary). I have not added a meaning to the word 'thought,' you have and that's why you are the one not understood on this thread (you are the only person to not understand me, while multiple people have responded to you trying to make you understand your mis-use of the word, no one else has done that to me).


I have not contradicted myself, if that is what you meant. Where have I admitted what you say? What I have said is that the alleged 'thoughts' you say say are in music, etc., are only thoughts when they are interpreted in language. Anything else, over and above this, if it is communicated, might be part of a code (that is just a suggestion!) -- but even that will require language to make its message clear.
This is the first time you've claimed that they are only thoughts through intrepretation. But once you interpret them, you move past thought to introspection or conversation (depending on how the debate is taking place). Thoughts don't have to be interpreted to be thoughts, that's pretty ridiculous and I don't think anyone would agree with that statement.


But, if such thoughts can only be made manifest in language, following upon an interpretation, then language is the key to thought, as I I said. Otherwise, the alleged 'thought' has no content, and so cannot be a thought (since it is not about anything).
You lack justification to make this assertion.


Look, sunshine, you are beginning to piss me off. I have been a militant atheist for longer than most RevLefters have been alive. So you can shove this talk.
:laugh: against all religions, to support another - how clever. I wish atheists didn't care about religion and just ignored all the bullshit, then they would be more believable as a group. Seriously though, its hard to take you for an atheist since you bring up god so much where ever you go, if it doesn't exist why talk about it? Doesn't that just give it (the idea of god) more power by even acknowledging it?


Well it does in fact ruin our point, for without language, your 'thoughts' are all devoid of content, and thus they are not thoughts to begin with. They seem to be some sort of vague feelings, or images, or prehensions, or affectations, or..., but not thoughts (or they'd have a content, and be about something). But, as soon as you give them content, they become thoughts, and to do that you need language. Hence, all thought is linguistic.
You have yet to justify this claim. I do like that you are now moving into the content of thought from thought itself, but it doesn't change your lack of justification. So your new claim is not that thought is only linguistic, but that thoughts can only have content that is linguistic?


If you will forgive me again, but this sounds like those who tell us that we cannot know what it is to experience 'god' until we have done so.

Hence, this is an empty gesture until you give it content --, but in order to do that, you'll have to use language.
[this is where you took the sentence out of context, like I did above] Taken in context, you would understand why I could not give you an example of something you've never experienced; here's the whole sentence: "Also, since I don't know where you are, where you've been and what you've seen, I can't give you an example of something you've never encountered."
Since I don't know you at all, I can't. If you were someone I knew, I could come up with something because I'd know enough about you.


Well, as my argument above shows this is not so.
Actually, you haven't shown that, you've only made yourself sound more like a dualist.


I think I have made my opinion of dictionaries perfectly clear.
Well then, how do you prove the meaning of a word?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

I'm busy getting ready for the march in London tomorrow -- so I'll reply when I get back.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Apologies for the delay in replying. I was busy all last week, and then I got the flu!

I will have a go at responding in the next few days.