Leo Smith wrote:
>> Rick Wojcik wrote:Now you have changed the question. The original question was
>> > whether one could think without language. Of course they can.
> > Not just animals, but people who have suffered catastrophic loss
> > of language from brain damage. I agree with you that language
> > affects our mental development, but that isn't the same as saying
> > that it is necessary for thinking--even logical thinking--to take
> > place. Animals clearly make deductions. Just not as well as
> > humans.
>> Oh for goodness sake. It depends what you define thinking and lanuage to be. As
> far as I am concerned, my internal representation of these concepts to myself, for
> my purposes, says that thinking is the silent exercise of language. By almost a
> matter of definition. But I wouldn't expect anyone else to have precisely the same
> set of subtle attributes attached to those two words, so an almost infinite series
> of responses by different people is likely if you start asking questions like
Read the question. If you define thinking as a silent exercise
in language, then you have just begged the question. Your only
way out of the dilemma is that you say it is "almost a matter of
definition". If you can tell us how "almost" differs from
"totally" in your mind, you might have a way out of the circular
> And it will reveal nothing about thinking, or language - merely how peoples
> internal representations of these concepts become externalised in yakking at each
Concepts can also become externalized by other methods--pointing,
facial expression, pantomime, etc.
> God this thread is boring.
Leo, is somebody threatening to kill you if you ignore this