# How do animals have thoughts?



## Accy cyclist (23 Aug 2017)

Watching my dog sleep tonight a thought entered my head. If they (dogs) can't speak a language how do they think? Surely to have thoughts you have to be able to say words in your head. If you can't speak a language then surely you can't think? Also,if a human was brought up without human contact,by animals, surely that human wouldn't be able to think? This is as serious question by the way.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (23 Aug 2017)




----------



## Drago (23 Aug 2017)

That's deep man, deep.


----------



## Smokin Joe (23 Aug 2017)

Accy cyclist said:


> Watching my dog sleep tonight a thought entered my head.



Well that's you sorted then.


----------



## Hill Wimp (23 Aug 2017)

How does my friends son, who was born deaf and dumb think then ????


----------



## Accy cyclist (23 Aug 2017)

Hill Wimp said:


> How does my friends son, who was born deaf and dumb think then ????


A good question.


----------



## arch684 (23 Aug 2017)

Maybe they think about somebody making stew with there food


----------



## Accy cyclist (23 Aug 2017)

arch684 said:


> Maybe they think about somebody making stew with there food


Let's not go down that road again.


----------



## Accy cyclist (23 Aug 2017)

Right,so i'm thinking now about going down the pub. I'm having those thoughts by using the English language. If i couldn't speak a language then i couldn't be having that thought,right?


----------



## potsy (23 Aug 2017)

Is this for real?


----------



## Accy cyclist (23 Aug 2017)

potsy said:


> Is this for real?


Of course it is. I've often wondered this. Do you see where i'm coming from?


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (23 Aug 2017)




----------



## potsy (23 Aug 2017)

Accy cyclist said:


> Do you see where i'm coming from?


Rarely.


----------



## Accy cyclist (23 Aug 2017)

potsy said:


> Rarely.


But maybe on this occasion?


----------



## Smokin Joe (23 Aug 2017)

Accy cyclist said:


> Of course it is. I've often wondered this. Do you see where i'm coming from?


No, but we know where you're going.


----------



## subaqua (23 Aug 2017)

Does your sheltered accommodation place look after the pills? 

They might need to amend the dose ...


----------



## PeteXXX (23 Aug 2017)

Instinct...


----------



## vickster (23 Aug 2017)

Smokin Joe said:


> No, but we know where you're going.


Broadmoor?


----------



## Accy cyclist (23 Aug 2017)

Smokin Joe said:


> No, but we know where you're going.


If you hadn't been taught a language,you wouldn't have been able to have that thought.


----------



## Accy cyclist (23 Aug 2017)

Anyway,i'm off down the pub. I expect some serious answers when i get back!


----------



## Tiger10 (23 Aug 2017)

Of course they can think!!!!! They just do it. I dont think in english.... i just think.


----------



## Piemaster (23 Aug 2017)

My dog sometimes thinks it wants some of my pie. Well, more _knows_ it wants some of my pie.
A paw on the leg and a short bark is part of a language it has developed to communicate its thoughts on my pie to me.

It's not a lack of language, it's getting the monkeys to understand it.


----------



## Shut Up Legs (23 Aug 2017)

Here you go, food for thought (sorry, couldn't help myself ):

http://mentalfloss.com/article/50684/it-possible-think-without-language
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_thought_without_language
http://www.debate.org/opinions/can-we-think-without-a-language
... etc, etc.


----------



## Yellow Fang (23 Aug 2017)

Not all thought is in words. If you're doing maths you're not using words. If you're trying to work out which bit goes where in a Sturmey Archer hub you've foolishly taken apart, you're not using words.


----------



## Kestevan (23 Aug 2017)

Yellow Fang said:


> Not all thought is in words. If you're doing maths you're not using words. If you're trying to work out which bit goes where in a Sturmey Archer hub you've foolishly taken apart, you're not using words.



Oh but you are using words, most if not all of them variations on F@&* or s*&£ and where did that bastard spring go....


----------



## raleighnut (23 Aug 2017)

Of course dogs can talk to other dogs just like cats have poetry battles with each other.


----------



## nickyboy (23 Aug 2017)

User said:


> I am not convinced that we really think our thoughts in words. Certainly not exclusively and maybe not at all. I reckon we add the words at a higher level on some of our thoughts but for a lot of stuff there isn't time.



I think that's right. It is thought that we use our "inner voice" to help with our short-term memory but beneath that are thoughts which we just feel

Interestingly, a number of deaf people report that they visualise sign language, pictures or words, in the absence of an "inner voice" for the same reason

Taking Accy's point, your pet only has basic feelings that don't require an "inner voice", which it (presumably) supplements with visual images


----------



## raleighnut (23 Aug 2017)

User said:


> And for many animals, smell is much more important than it is for humans. Perhaps dogs have an aromaabet with which they articulate thought.


My GSD did, his favourite cologne was Fox 'scat'


----------



## Drago (23 Aug 2017)

Dogs have only four thoughts - eat, poop, sniff other dogs nethers, sleep.


----------



## Sharky (23 Aug 2017)

Goggle reptilian brain.


----------



## gaijintendo (23 Aug 2017)

[QUOTE 4929128, member: 45"]So is love. [/QUOTE]
How do you say "please" in love?
Because if love is gesture based... you might be confusing it with mime.

It's easy to confuse love and mime... I fell in mime once... but I don't like to talk about it.


----------



## Yellow Fang (23 Aug 2017)

When Sadi Carnot was thinking about maximum efficiency of heat engines, or when Einstein was thinking his thought experiments, I doubt they were using language. I've heard Maths called a language, but I don't think it is.


----------



## slowmotion (23 Aug 2017)

If animals don't think, how can they display intelligence?


----------



## accountantpete (23 Aug 2017)




----------



## gaijintendo (23 Aug 2017)

slowmotion said:


> If animals don't think, how can they display intelligence?


They do sudoku on the bus.


----------



## stephec (23 Aug 2017)

Shut Up Legs said:


> Here you go, food for thought (sorry, couldn't help myself ):
> 
> http://mentalfloss.com/article/50684/it-possible-think-without-language
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity
> ...


Don't encourage him.


----------



## gavroche (23 Aug 2017)

Many animals talk to each other. Dolphins, whales, elephants, wolves and so on do it. They just don't use language as we know it but sound intonation. It is a good question though .


----------



## Reynard (23 Aug 2017)

When we think of language, we think of vocalisation, but certainly cats use body language to communicate with each other along with a comparatively limited range of sounds. As any cat slave will tell you, you learn to read it. I understand what my cats want, and they can pick up on what I want too, sometimes even before I know it. What is quite interesting though, is that while cat-to-cat communication is consistent, cat-to-human and human-to-cat varies with each and every household.

For instance, my two girls know that "shoo" means "you are in my way and I'll step on you if you persist in sitting there". When they hear "shoo", they'll up sticks. However, when I'm at a friend's place, her cats haven't the foggiest what "shoo" means. Instead, their equivalent to "you are in my way etc" is "move".

Besides, Lexi is convinced that I'm a godawful cat, given the number of gifts she brings me...


----------



## gavroche (23 Aug 2017)

Is Accy back from the pub yet?


----------



## rich p (24 Aug 2017)

I think Accy has unknowingly touched on a subject that the initial sneerers are struggling with.
He's a hidden genius...albeit well-hidden
BTW, I'm just back from the boozer even if he's in a lock-in


----------



## Yellow Fang (24 Aug 2017)

User said:


> What is a language? A method of communication and expressing ideas.
> 
> What is maths?



I think it's more a tool. If you are doing long division, you using it to get a result. You're not really thinking in words when doing maths, and if you are trying to prompt yourself with words, like 'change the side, change the sign', then you're saying them in English. You can say maths is a method of communication and expressing ideas, but so is a technical drawing and that's not language.


----------



## rich p (24 Aug 2017)

User said:


> What is a language? A method of communication and expressing ideas.
> 
> What is *maths*?


It's not a method of communication.


----------



## smutchin (24 Aug 2017)

rich p said:


> It's not a method of communication.



It is. It communicates facts about the world. Maths is the purest form of language, distilled to abstraction.


----------



## Accy cyclist (24 Aug 2017)

gavroche said:


> Is Accy back from the pub yet?


I'm back. I asked this question while down there. I might've well asked my dog,considering the responses.


----------



## marinyork (24 Aug 2017)

Yellow Fang said:


> I think it's more a tool. If you are doing long division, you using it to get a result. You're not really thinking in words when doing maths, and if you are trying to prompt yourself with words, like 'change the side, change the sign', then you're saying them in English. You can say maths is a method of communication and expressing ideas, but so is a technical drawing and that's not language.



You might have stumbled on a semiotics discussion there, accidentally.


----------



## slowmotion (24 Aug 2017)

Yellow Fang said:


> I think it's more a tool. If you are doing long division, you using it to get a result. You're not really thinking in words when doing maths, and if you are trying to prompt yourself with words, like 'change the side, change the sign', then you're saying them in English. You can say maths is a method of communication and expressing ideas, but so is a technical drawing and that's not language.


These days, I have to think blooming hard when doing long division. I try it every few months as a tripwire for the onset of dementia.


----------



## marinyork (24 Aug 2017)

Accy cyclist said:


> I'm back. I asked this question while down there. I might've well asked my dog,considering the responses.



Good, this will make sense now 


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_QylCztffk


----------



## Accy cyclist (24 Aug 2017)

marinyork said:


> Good, this will make sense now
> 
> 
> View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_QylCztffk



I'm watching this now..


----------



## Yellow Fang (24 Aug 2017)

marinyork said:


> You might have stumbled on a semiotics discussion there, accidentally.



Is that good or bad?


----------



## Roadhump (24 Aug 2017)

Accy cyclist said:


> Watching my dog sleep tonight a thought entered my head. If they (dogs) can't speak a language how do they think? Surely to have thoughts you have to be able to say words in your head. If you can't speak a language then surely you can't think? Also,if a human was brought up without human contact,by animals, surely that human wouldn't be able to think? This is as serious question by the way.


Blimey, it's obvious, they think in barks.


----------



## screenman (24 Aug 2017)

There is a car stopped in front of me, that means I need to brake quickly, bang. Damn I wish I could talk faster. 

Doctor, that medication you gave me has made me go deaf, why is that, I cannot hear the voices in my head anymore


----------



## gbb (24 Aug 2017)

I've often thought about how dogs in particular...think. it's not in words of course it's emotion...smells, sights etc will trigger waves of emotion...aggression, excitement, potential of food, play etc etc. The range of emotions may be quite wide...,mine for instance displays quite obvious signs of being fed up if I walk downstairs first thing in the morning in my dressing gown...he Instantly knows he's not going to get a walk and won't even look at me...mardy get .
Emotion...it must be.


----------



## rich p (24 Aug 2017)

User said:


> It is. As @smutchin says:


I disagree with you and Smutch then!


----------



## threebikesmcginty (24 Aug 2017)

rich p said:


> I disagree with you and Smutch then!



You must've put 80085 into a calculator rich, how is that not maths communicating?


----------



## rich p (24 Aug 2017)

threebikesmcginty said:


> You must've put 80085 into a calculator rich, how is that not maths communicating?


You're all tits?


----------



## growingvegetables (24 Aug 2017)

Yellow Fang said:


> I think it's more a tool. If you are doing long division, you using it to get a result. You're not really thinking in words when doing maths, and if you are trying to prompt yourself with words, like 'change the side, change the sign', then you're saying them in English ....


... and possibly struggling with Maths as a language? You'd be at roughly the equvalent of Basic Conversational Mandarin? (I speak as one who would find Mandarin considerably easier .)



Yellow Fang said:


> You can say maths is a method of communication and expressing ideas, but so is a technical drawing and that's not language.


Hmm. So ... what is language? It's more than alphabet, words, phrases and sentences ... we're easy (I guess) with stretching the idea of language, to include Sign Language.

And music notation - a language? We "read" music.

Maps - we "read" maps? 

All sorts of ways of using symbols to convey a range of thoughts and ideas. Technical drawing ... why not?


----------



## marinyork (24 Aug 2017)

smutchin said:


> It is. It communicates facts about the world. Maths is the purest form of language, distilled to abstraction.



Does it? How do you know it isn't the world that 'communicates' facts about Maths?


----------



## marinyork (24 Aug 2017)

Yellow Fang said:


> Is that good or bad?



Good. Seem to be a lot of people here having it on the tip of their tongue.


----------



## MacB (24 Aug 2017)

I went down this rabbithole a few years ago, started innocently by watching some Chomsky videos and reading some books, on politics and economics. Enjoyed his views so thought I'd see what his linguistic speciality was all about...way out of my depth. If I really concentrated I could grasp individual points but retaining them, or the overall concepts, felt like trying to hold onto a dream when you first wake up. I didn't even finish the book it was so far beyond me.

About all I really gleaned is he has ideas about language appearing as an inbuilt ability in the brain at some point in our evolutionary past. He believes that without that evolutionary leap we'd be unaware/instinctive/lacking in the way animals are. But the linguists and long brains can't agree on any of this and I think Chomsky is an outlier in his language/hardware belief.


----------



## MacB (24 Aug 2017)

rich p said:


> I disagree with you and Smutch then!



and you're entitled to your opinion even when you're as wrong as any Hobbit has ever been.


----------



## growingvegetables (24 Aug 2017)

marinyork said:


> Does it? How do you know it isn't the world that 'communicates' facts about Maths?


At this point, I shall go and fry my brain cells for breakfast.


----------



## MacB (24 Aug 2017)

marinyork said:


> Does it? How do you know it isn't the world that 'communicates' facts about Maths?



the maths underpins everything but beneath that it's all turtles


----------



## rich p (24 Aug 2017)

MacB said:


> and you're entitled to your opinion even when you're as wrong as any Hobbit has ever been.


It all depends on how flagrant you are with your definition of language and I suspect there are some who are willing to stretch it to breaking point.
It doesn't mean you're clever though, Mac, just contrary


----------



## MacB (24 Aug 2017)

rich p said:


> It all depends on how flagrant you are with your definition of language and I suspect there are some who are willing to stretch it to breaking point.
> It doesn't mean you're clever though, Mac, just contrary



Freely admit I'm clueless but I do know we communicate with computers via maths


----------



## Accy cyclist (24 Aug 2017)

I communicate with my dog by making sounds that resemble words. For example if i wanted to say "five minutes and i'll take you for a walk", i'll make a nasal humming tone,similar to the tones and pitches of the actual words. There's no point in saying the actual words as it's a waste of effort. They say that the dog goes off the tone and pitch of the command,rather than the words. I used to communicate with my mother in such a way,when i was a child,much to her annoyance. I got the idea of these.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ok6CoIwcJ-E


----------



## rich p (24 Aug 2017)

MacB said:


> Freely admit I'm clueless


Blimey that puts you one step ahead of me.

Maths is just the mechanism for computers to communicate though, not a language, any more than the larynx is a language.
I'm off to work now anyway and I don't really give a toss. I'm far too shallow.


----------



## smutchin (24 Aug 2017)

It's the ability to form abstract expressions that makes maths a language. 

However, most of my understanding of this subject is at the level of a first year philosophy undergraduate who took a module on the philosophy of language about 25 years ago. So I probably have even less of a clue than @MacB


----------



## smutchin (24 Aug 2017)

Accy cyclist said:


> I communicate with my dog by making sounds that resemble words. For example if i wanted to say "five minutes and i'll take you for a walk", i'll make a nasal humming tone,similar to the tones and pitches of the actual words. There's no point in saying the actual words as it's a waste of effort. They say that the dog goes off the tone and pitch of the command,rather than the words.



Dogs can learn to associate specific words or sounds with specific commands though. Which is not the same as understanding the meaning of the words, of course. 

Shepherds use whistles because they make the sounds more consistently than voices, and can travel further, so anyone who knows the right whistles can command any trained sheepdog.


----------



## Profpointy (24 Aug 2017)

smutchin said:


> It's the ability to form abstract expressions that makes maths a language.
> 
> However, most of my understanding of this subject is at the level of a first year philosophy undergraduate who took a module on the philosophy of language about 25 years ago. So I probably have even less of a clue than @MacB



Whilst there is (clearly) "the language of maths" isn't that just a way of describing "maths proper"; the later being some kind of "Platonic truth" if that's the term? Penrose's wonderful if challenging book "Road to Reality" covers some of this kind of thing


----------



## Accy cyclist (24 Aug 2017)

smutchin said:


> Dogs can learn to associate specific words or sounds with specific commands though. Which is not the same as understanding the meaning of the words, of course.
> 
> Shepherds use whistles because they make the sounds more consistently than voices, and can travel further, so anyone who knows the right whistles can command any trained sheepdog.


I've always wondered what "Cum bye" means?


----------



## smutchin (24 Aug 2017)

Profpointy said:


> Whilst there is (clearly) "the language of maths" isn't that just a way of describing "maths proper"; the later being some kind of "Platonic truth" if that's the term?



I'm not sure what your point is. Description is the fundamental purpose of any language; but language isn't equivalent with the thing it describes.


----------



## smutchin (24 Aug 2017)

Accy cyclist said:


> I've always wondered what "Cum bye" means?



You'd make a rubbish sheepdog.


----------



## Profpointy (24 Aug 2017)

smutchin said:


> I'm not sure what your point is. Description is the fundamental purpose of any language; but language isn't equivalent with the thing it describes.



That's exaclty the point I was attempting to make. Your explanation is better than mine


----------



## gavroche (24 Aug 2017)

Dogs also understand languages. When I go to France, if I give an order to my brother's dog in English, he remains blank. Say it in French and he understands. Clever , aren't they?


----------



## Drago (24 Aug 2017)

My dog can say the word "sausages".


----------



## Colin_P (24 Aug 2017)

Drago said:


> My dog can say the word "sausages".



Bollocks. 

Does he still have his bollocks? More importantly is your woofer a 'classical liberal' like my woofer is. I don't think they can help it, where as cats are just intolerant hedonistic nazi a'oles, well my cat is. When I mean classical liberal, my dog is firm but fair, doesn't bully other dogs into thinking thoughts that they approve of but will get growly if other dogs start to take the mick. He also thinks small dogs are left wing and are out of touch with the real dog world.


----------



## Drago (24 Aug 2017)

He is still teste-intacta.

He's a right winger. I've taught him to salute to the command "hail to the chief".


----------



## Colin_P (24 Aug 2017)

Yes, you can always tell which dogs are left and right wing, more tricky to spot a classical liberal one though.

The lefty dogs eat all of their food straight away without any thought and then try and eat other dogs dinners as well. A right wing dog will graze like a cow and can take the whole day to eat their bowl. A classical liberal dog, like mine, mainly does the grazing like a cow thing but will also very politely ask you for some of your dinner and is not too offended if you sometimes say, "No, not for doggies.".


----------



## MacB (24 Aug 2017)

I suppose you could look at ideas we've come up with around universal communication, best starting point would probably be the SETI Institute. They may be nuts but I don't think they expect the aliens to understand English.


----------



## stephec (24 Aug 2017)

gavroche said:


> Dogs also understand languages. When I go to France, if I give an order to my brother's dog in English, he remains blank. Say it in French and he understands. Clever , aren't they?


Do you get another dog to act as an interpreter?


----------



## MiK1138 (24 Aug 2017)

Yellow Fang said:


> Not all thought is in words. .......... If you're trying to work out which bit goes where in a Sturmey Archer hub you've foolishly taken apart, you're not using words.


Well you might be using words just not very nice words


----------



## MacB (24 Aug 2017)

User14044mountain said:


> Who knows and who knows if we can ever know? The work of Thomas Nagel is worth a read:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_it_Like_to_Be_a_Bat?
> 
> He argued that we could never know what it is like to be a bat because our brains and senses work in very different ways. It's a really interesting field of philosophy. In proposing this, Nagel is attempting to refute the reductionist stance which says a complex system is nothing more than the sum of its parts).



Beyond that they can't even agree on what it's like to be human, I guess the reductionists you refer to are the ones that see mind as purely biological.

Nah, it's no good, this hurts, it's like trying to grasp infinity as a concept.


----------



## Dayvo (24 Aug 2017)

Accy cyclist said:


> Anyway,i'm off down the pub. I expect some serious answers when i get back!



I wouldn't hold your breath.


----------



## Dayvo (24 Aug 2017)

My mate's dog understands Finnish - one of the universe's most difficult language. 



Yes, I know it's about tone, expression and volume etc.


----------



## Fnaar (24 Aug 2017)

Dogs know things. We know that we know things. There lies the difference.
I can't lick my b0ll0cks either*, but most male dogs can**.

*I've tried 
**their own, not mine.


----------



## growingvegetables (24 Aug 2017)

Reynard said:


> When we think of language, we think of vocalisation, ......


Just spotted this .

Rattles my cage a wee bit . 

As anybody among us will recognise ... who has also had the pleasure of teaching French to a bunch of Year 8 lads, two-thirds of whom were diagnosed dyslexic . French, FFS .

Anyways - what language in UK has most speakers, after English? British Sign Language! And how many schools teach BSL to GCSE level? None. You're hard-pressed to find it in schools/units for the deaf . When you think of how useful it would be, how natural it would be for so many more people to be bilingual in vocalised English AND sign language ... ah, well! That's me cage rattled, I'll slink back in and snooze .


----------



## robjh (24 Aug 2017)

smutchin said:


> It's the ability to form abstract expressions that makes maths a language.


Well to an extent. The language of maths may share some structural features with natural language, eg. that a finite number of symbols with semantic associations can be recombined by the application of a finite set of rules (syntax) to form an infinite set of outcomes, yet compared to natural language the types of meaning it can convey are rather limited (although within its own field, it is capable of encoding very precise meanings).


smutchin said:


> Description is the fundamental purpose of any language;......


The fundamental purpose of any language is communication, and description is only one part of that. It is hard to see what descriptive content there is in utterances such as 'Hi', 'can you open the window?', 'all's well that ends well' or 'nice day, isn't it', and even 'I'm hungry' is usually interpreted as a request for action ('feed me!') rather than the transmission of information. Maths can do description within its own field, but cannot perform any of the speech acts that are fundamental to natural language.


----------



## growingvegetables (24 Aug 2017)

robjh said:


> Maths can do description within its own field, but cannot perform any of the speech acts that are fundamental to *natural* language.


Umm - I saw what you did there!


----------



## robjh (24 Aug 2017)

User13710 said:


> Ahem. Speech acts are not necessary for natural language ...


Can you expand on that? I can't imagine one without them.


----------



## robjh (24 Aug 2017)

growingvegetables said:


> Umm - I saw what you did there!


re. *natural* language.
Yes. A lot of this discussion depends on how widely you draw the definition of 'language'. I would argue that natural human language is the benchmark by which we judge what is and isn't a language. Other systems may have more or fewer language-like attributes but we have to come back to this baseline to have something to judge them against.


----------



## rich p (24 Aug 2017)

User said:


> That is going to make it very hard for any animal that lacks the physical ability to make the same noises as us.


Leave @threebikesmcginty out of this.


----------



## SpokeyDokey (24 Aug 2017)

Fnaar said:


> Dogs know things. We know that we know things. There lies the difference.
> I can't lick my b0ll0cks either*, but most male dogs can**.
> 
> *I've tried
> **their own, not mine.



@Fnaar 

Your asterixing (?) excludes the option of _you_ licking a dogs rollocks - worrying.


----------



## growingvegetables (24 Aug 2017)

robjh said:


> Can you expand on that? I can't imagine one without them.


BSL


----------



## JtB (24 Aug 2017)

User said:


> I am not convinced that we really think our thoughts in words. Certainly not exclusively and maybe not at all. I reckon we add the words at a higher level on some of our thoughts but for a lot of stuff there isn't time.


^^^^ I learned to speak Spanish from someone who couldn't speak English so my second language evolved mainly in the language itself without referencing back to my first language (a bit like a child's first language evolves). In the early days there were times when I wanted to express a concept but didn't have the vocabulary and the strange thing was that sometimes when I thought back to my first language the words didn't immediately come to mind either. So I must have thought the "concept" first then applied the language afterwards.


----------



## robjh (24 Aug 2017)

growingvegetables said:


> BSL


Sign languages such as BSL can encode everything that spoken language can, it is only the nature of the symbols that changes. Sign users manage to ask, apologise, express emotions etc just as fluently as users of spoken languages. 


User said:


> That is going to make it very hard for any animal that lacks the physical ability to make the same noises as us.


See my reply about BSL. I think the nature of the symbols is of relatively low importance, but the communicative use of them and the way they can be recombined to transmit meaning, of all kinds, are more significant.


----------



## robjh (24 Aug 2017)

User13710 said:


> Sorry Rob, I don't think you really understand what BSL is. It does not encode spoken language, it is a language in its own right, with all the attributes of a spoken language plus aspects of space and time that spoken language is less efficient at making use of. Speech is a form of language, not a definition of it.


I didn't say it encodes spoken language, I said they are both capable of encoding exactly the same range of meanings which of course includes speech acts.
Nor did I say that speech is the only definition of language, but more the archetype against which other claims of 'languageness' should be judged. I agree that sign languages are languages in their own right.


----------



## threebikesmcginty (24 Aug 2017)

rich p said:


> Leave @threebikesmcginty out of this.



Touché ya feck!


----------



## robjh (24 Aug 2017)

User13710 said:


> OK, I misunderstood you. But the 'archetype' myth is wrong and problematic.


OK, I was struggling to find the best terminology there, but bear with the term 'archetype' for the moment.
If we are going to attempt to decide what does and doesn't count as a language, then we have to know what we mean by 'language', and judge each candidate by its similarity or distance to our base definition. Spoken languages are the primary form of language, in that they are universal in human societies, and have existed far longer than written forms, which until recently have been the preserve of a minority. Fully-functional sign languages are an even more recent addition. 
Everyone agrees that English, Hindi, Igbo, Quechua etc are languages, so for me the definition of what constitutes a language must lie in the features that are common to all of these. It is then a matter of rational debate as to what level of divergence from these features is permissible before a system stops being a true language.

If there's a better word than 'archetype' for this then I'll gladly use it.


----------



## robjh (24 Aug 2017)

FWIW I don't believe that computer languages are languages in any general meaning of the term.


----------



## JtB (24 Aug 2017)

robjh said:


> FWIW I don't believe that computer languages are languages in any general meaning of the term.


11001111000001111


----------



## robjh (24 Aug 2017)

User13710 said:


> Well, I don't at all agree that "spoken languages are the primary form of language" is a base definition. It's very likely that humans communicated fluently and effectively with gesture and body language long before speech began to evolve. And animals also use the language of their bodies to communicate with each other incredibly effectively, which brings us neatly back to Accy's original question about how thought could exist without words.
> 
> Profoundly deaf children don't have empty brains just because they can't hear speech. Deaf people dream in sign, and Oliver Sacks records seeing an elderly profoundly deaf woman signing in her sleep. These aren't offshoots of spoken language, it's the other way around. Speech is a relative newcomer in the language stakes.


What is your definition of 'language' then, as opposed to simply 'communication'? Compared to mine, you seem to include a range of communications that I would class as non-linguistic, eg. body language.


----------



## SpokeyDokey (24 Aug 2017)

To be fair to @Accy cyclist I think it's a damn good question to ask - I've pondered it myself as well.

Sadly I have no answer though.


----------



## robjh (24 Aug 2017)

User13710 said:


> A language is the method by which communication takes place. Speech is one form. Gesture is another. Runes are a language. The people who try to fix faulty communication in humans are called "Speech AND language therapists" for the good reason that communication consists in far more than just speech. The trouble is that the world is dominated by speech, to the point that anyone who doesn't speak for whatever reason is thought of as disabled (or sometimes in the case of Deaf people who do not have speech, I'm sorry to say, "dumb").


Fair enough. I think we're coming at the question from different disciplines, I'm approaching it from that of linguistics, where the object of study is clearly what are conventionally called 'languages'. The role of other types of communication is acknowledged, indeed it can't be otherwise as once you start looking at socio- or psychological aspects of language the boundaries become quite blurred, but the stuff with the semantics, phonetics*, words(another matter of debate!) and syntax still forms the core.

*with sign language, just about every linguist agrees that gestures fulfil the same role and AFAIK no-one seriously questions its status as a language.

Anyway, I hope we can agree to differ on this while seeing each other's standpoint.


----------



## Bonefish Blues (24 Aug 2017)

What's on your mind Accy?


----------



## Accy cyclist (24 Aug 2017)

Bonefish Blues said:


> What's on your mind Accy?


Right now. Everything. Mainly, should i let Mrs Accy lock our dog up tomorrow for 10 hours. Or should i go and rescue him and risk me getting a warning for having a pet in this place.


----------



## Bonefish Blues (24 Aug 2017)

Hear of a whoosh parrot?


----------



## MacB (24 Aug 2017)

The deep contemplation on this thread has me thinking strange thoughts like, does Accy really exist?


----------



## Accy cyclist (24 Aug 2017)

Bonefish Blues said:


> Hear of a whoosh parrot?


Oh right. I thought you were genuinely concerned,not just after taking the piss.


----------



## craigwend (24 Aug 2017)

*Schrödinger's Accy* is a thought experiment, sometimes described as a paradox, devised by Austrian physicist Erwin Schrödinger in 1935. It illustrates what he saw as the problem of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics applied to everyday objects. The scenario presents an *Accy* that may be *simultaneously both alive and dead,* a state known as a quantum superposition, as a result of being linked to a random subatomic event that may or may not occur. The thought experiment is also often featured in theoretical discussions of the interpretations of quantum mechanics. Schrödinger coined the term _Verschränkung_ (entanglement) in the course of developing the thought experiment.


----------



## robjh (24 Aug 2017)

User said:


> Have you thought about getting it appointed as a therapy dog?


See what the dog thinks first.


----------



## growingvegetables (24 Aug 2017)

robjh said:


> ... I'm approaching it from that of linguistics, where the object of study is clearly what are conventionally called 'languages' ....


So am I (albeit in a wee bit of a career diversion many years ago!).

And I'm very happy with going way beyond a definition restricted to "what are conventionally called 'languages'." There are any number of ways in which humans (and animals!) express thought through symbols and syntax, whether gestures/attitudes/uttered-and/or-made sounds/visual symbols, whatever.

I'm fascinated by somebody I know, whose dyslexia is utterly invisible in terms of her Arabic. Totally, completely. She reads, writes, ... writes bloody poetry! Arabic is processed differently in the brain - it's a language driven by logical rules for spelling, grammar, even vocabulary creation (there's ONE single spelling irregularity in Arabic, and it's kinda hard to forget or get wrong. It's the word "Allah". I kid you not ). However, give her English to read or write, or a map to read, or a problem which involves a progression of dates (dotting backwards and forwards) --- wow, and then her dyslexia becomes obvious. Yes, I know the idea of brain-mapping for areas that "process language" - and I suspect they are they're quite defined by mapping "processing English", with its frightening acceptance and absorption of irregularities.

Another wee career diversion - I taught guitar for a few years. And, happenstance, found a way of showing music to pre-reading and about-to-read kids, so that they could play - solo, together, and in harmony. Conventionally, far too young to learn guitar ... but it worked. One reason (first, to let them succeed in playing; secondly, as a first, second, third, whatever step to reading music/tablature), was that it "matched" the language-reading abilities of 5 and 6 year olds really well; they weren't restricted to their ears and memory. I'll not pretend it was planned or developed; it was the purest fluke. [But am I chuffed that one of the wee lasses who came into that group will soon graduate from Leeds College of Music? ]

Just a very long-winded "language is a damned sight more than 'established languages'".


----------



## Shut Up Legs (24 Aug 2017)

User said:


> Was there simultaneously a post that was and was not?


----------



## Bonefish Blues (24 Aug 2017)

Accy cyclist said:


> Oh right. I thought you were genuinely concerned,not just after taking the piss.


You've done something more than your fair share, TBF!


----------



## robjh (24 Aug 2017)

growingvegetables said:


> So am I (albeit in a wee bit of a career diversion many years ago!).
> 
> And I'm very happy with going way beyond a definition restricted to "what are conventionally called 'languages'." There are any number of ways in which humans (and animals!) express thought through symbols and syntax, whether gestures/attitudes/uttered-and/or-made sounds/visual symbols, whatever.
> 
> ...


Sort of my 'blurred boundaries' point. Of course language by my narrow definition is linked with other (prelinguistic? paralinguistic?) features of communication and mental processes, but "what are conventionally called languages" are something distinct, which is why I draw the boundary where I do. But give or take a little question of terminology I agree with everything you say.


----------



## SpokeyDokey (24 Aug 2017)

But how does all this Deep Stuff answer the OP?

My dog (long gone, sadly) used to work out various puzzles eg when working his way up a rock face in the mountains with me he'd take a look, work out a route and then off he would hurtle.

How did he think that through? What went through his head?

It is a bit of a puzzle.


----------



## growingvegetables (24 Aug 2017)

SpokeyDokey said:


> But how does all this Deep Stuff answer the OP?
> 
> My dog (long gone, sadly) used to work out various puzzles eg when working his way up a rock face in the mountains with me he'd take a look, work out a route and then off he would hurtle.
> 
> ...


If he's any sense at all, he's piss$d off to the pub again! And left the dog to think wise thoughts in his absence!


----------



## Accy cyclist (24 Aug 2017)

User said:


> Have you thought about getting it appointed as a therapy dog?


Is this a serious question? If it is,then that's feasible. The old fogies would actually like him because he's one of those dogs that rolls over and likes to be stroked. I've had him in the home where my mum is and they love him there. Dogs are good for the elderly,as they bring back memories and they like the contact. I know the home's tell tale hates dogs as i asked him if he'd ever owned one. Mind you,he hates children,anyone under 70,the Japanese,seagulls,cyclists,people who don't have their own microwaves,those who use computers, You name it, he hates it.


----------



## craigwend (24 Aug 2017)




----------



## Fnaar (24 Aug 2017)

Miss Goodbody communicates very effectively through pheromones. If I've had my tea, the kitchen window is open, and there's a westerly breeze, it's a call I can't resist.


----------



## Accy cyclist (25 Aug 2017)

[QUOTE 4930473, member: 9609"]I am wondering now how she would have constructed the words in her head if she had never heard them spoken,[/QUOTE]
That's a very good point and question. I'm sat here trying to work that one out. I can't see how she could.


----------



## Tin Pot (25 Aug 2017)

[QUOTE 4930473, member: 9609"]I used to know someone through work who had been born deaf and could not speak (used to make squeaking noises) She could read and write perfectly well and I am wondering now how she would have constructed the words in her head if she had never heard them spoken, presumably created her own pronunciations ? or could you read in another way?

At least when I read I say the words to myself in my head, I'm guessing others do the same, or do others read in a different way ? and I don't mean reading stuff out aloud, I only do this if I can't understand it, not that getting the words to come out of my mouth and go back in through my ears helps,[/QUOTE]

Likely she experiences thought in purely visual terms, maybe with touch and smell added in. of course, we all attach feelings to words or concepts as well.


----------



## Illaveago (25 Aug 2017)

Accy cyclist said:


> A good question.


I sort of see what you are getting at, in that they don't hear the thought voice in their head like a song being played or your favourite clip from a movie being played out. 
There must be some sort of communication and thought process that we are totally unaware of. A couple of instances being how lions set up a trap in the wild. One lion will lie in wait whilst the others will drive the animals towards it. The other instance I can think of communication and thought process was the one where a Husky made friends with a Polar Bear in play which then communicated the idea to other Polar Bears who also joined in.
I was just thinking of one of my cat's which you could visibly see that he was thinking. 
We have got mirror doors on our bedroom wardrobe and Trent our cat liked to sit next to them. One day I watched him staring into the strange room beyond the glass, totally ignoring the cat in front of him. Every now and then he would turn round and check behind him to discover that both rooms contained similar objects.
It was like watching cogs whirring.


----------



## Fnaar (25 Aug 2017)

[QUOTE 4930473, member: 9609"]I used to know someone through work who had been born deaf and could not speak (used to make squeaking noises) She could read and write perfectly well and I am wondering now how she would have constructed the words in her head if she had never heard them spoken, presumably created her own pronunciations ? or could you read in another way?

At least when I read I say the words to myself in my head, I'm guessing others do the same, or do others read in a different way ? and I don't mean reading stuff out aloud, I only do this if I can't understand it, not that getting the words to come out of my mouth and go back in through my ears helps,[/QUOTE]



Accy cyclist said:


> That's a very good point and question. I'm sat here trying to work that one out. I can't see how she could.





Tin Pot said:


> Likely she experiences thought in purely visual terms, maybe with touch and smell added in. of course, we all attach feelings to words or concepts as well.





User13710 said:


> Oh dear, there is often such a failure of imagination about this on the part of “people who use words” (and I am one)! This is hard.
> 
> Deaf people don’t need “words” to form their thoughts. “Words” are their second language - their first language is “Sign”. Their use of it to form their thoughts, opinions, feelings, view of the world is almost incomprehensible to people who use “words”. Because, inevitably, the mass (majority) of people who use “words” automatically assume that “speech” is superior in every way and somehow essential to being human. Therefore, anyone who doesn’t automatically use “speech” must be inferior, or disabled.
> 
> ...



As @User13710 says. Some answers here: http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2010/07/how-deaf-people-think/


----------



## Tin Pot (25 Aug 2017)

User13710 said:


> Deaf people don’t need “words” to form their thoughts. “Words” are their second language - their first language is “Sign”. Their use of it to form their thoughts, opinions, feelings, view of the world is almost incomprehensible to people who use “words”.



@Accy cyclist 
Language is the key concept here - as you know there are many kinds of language, some written, some spoken, some signed, maths and code fit into this paradigm.

As long as you have language, you have a frame of reference for thought.


----------



## Tin Pot (25 Aug 2017)

Fnaar said:


> As @User13710 says. Some answers here: http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2010/07/how-deaf-people-think/



I don't suppose you know what evidence here is behind these statements? I've always wondered precisely how true it is that language enables thought - it throws up some interesting philosophical questions around self awareness and consciousness, e.g. how did these thoughts come about before the language existed to allow them.


----------



## Tin Pot (25 Aug 2017)

User13710 said:


> You could read the quote from Helen Keller in the link, as a starting point?


Already have. Thanks.


----------



## Fnaar (25 Aug 2017)

Tin Pot said:


> I don't suppose you know what evidence here is behind these statements? I've always wondered precisely how true it is that language enables thought - it throws up some interesting philosophical questions around self awareness and consciousness, e.g. how did these thoughts come about before the language existed to allow them.


It's a can of worms really, but wiki gives some useful summaries and jumping-off points: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_and_thought


----------



## Fnaar (25 Aug 2017)

Sign-language is a language in itself. For anyone with an interest, this brief docu on Nicaraguan sign language is informative. Basically, attempts were made to bring deaf kids from remote locations together, and teach them American Sign Language. All very noble, but it didn't work. The kids invented their own sign language. Fascinating stuff. 

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPeuHAQocdQ


----------



## MacB (25 Aug 2017)

I'm not sure I'd ever be equipped to understand a deaf persons conceptual understanding of language. I caught some of that Autistic Gardener show on TV and the star, Alan Gardner tried to explain how he perceived the world around him. I found that very hard to follow and he can speak and hear:-

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/...eos/all/s1-ep4-radical-overhaul/4367294571001


For starters I'm musically tone deaf(if that is still the correct/accepted term) and I have a negative level of flair for artistic things. Though I did experience some comfort when @threebikesmcginty revealed his musical tastes to the forum and I realised I wasn't the worst.


----------



## Tin Pot (25 Aug 2017)

Fnaar said:


> It's a can of worms really, but wiki gives some useful summaries and jumping-off points: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_and_thought


Cheers, it's also interesting that it follows that if we lose languages - of any kind - we lose ways of thinking.

Bizarre, but apparently true.


----------



## Welsh wheels (25 Aug 2017)

Accy cyclist said:


> Watching my dog sleep tonight a thought entered my head. If they (dogs) can't speak a language how do they think? Surely to have thoughts you have to be able to say words in your head. If you can't speak a language then surely you can't think? Also,if a human was brought up without human contact,by animals, surely that human wouldn't be able to think? This is as serious question by the way.


My Alsatian is reading this thread on the other laptop, he's spilled his beer and pooped himself laughing.


----------



## robjh (25 Aug 2017)

Welsh wheels said:


> My Alsatian is reading this thread on the other laptop, he's spilled his beer and pooped himself laughing.


Is he one of our regular posters? And if so, should we try and guess which one?


----------



## Crackle (25 Aug 2017)

robjh said:


> Is he one of our regular posters? And if so, should we try and guess which one?


Too many candidates.


----------



## Illaveago (25 Aug 2017)

Tin Pot said:


> Cheers, it's also interesting that it follows that if we lose languages - of any kind - we lose ways of thinking.
> 
> Bizarre, but apparently true.


During one of my episodes I lost the voice in my head which accompanies my thoughts and whilst I'm reading, it wasn't nice, my mind was a total blank yet I knew something was wrong. It may be hard to explain or understand but it very reassuring when it returned.


----------



## Prometheus (25 Aug 2017)

Let me see now I think therefore I am.
Look on it as natural engineering.

I think digitally then it goes to a Language assembler.
Where sentences are constructed, then on to codec converter.
Where the digital is converted into an analogue signal,
Because the Larynx is like a speaker and needs an analogue signal to work.
Now we are putting our thoughts into words, we have an emotional link with
each word spoken.
So because we use the same neurones that run the complex facial emotional expressions,
also run the new Larynx voice box (evolution in full swing)
As each word is spoken, the emotion of the word flashes in sink across the face.
This is at a camera shutter speed about .3 to .4 of a seconded in a Italians, slower
in most northern Europeans.
Most people can learn to read this involuntary facial communication, and if the emotions
do not match the speech, you have a lie.

Combine facial recognition tech with this new emerging science inexperience
police officers and the court will know a lie at a hundred yards.

I am now thinking quietly with a glass of wine to help, for the best is yet to come.


----------



## Ian H (25 Aug 2017)

Prometheus said:


> Let me see now I think therefore I am.



Long-discredited as a serious philosophical argument on the grounds that you haven't proved that "I" exists. Or, to put it another way, you have "I" on both sides of the equation.


----------



## classic33 (25 Aug 2017)

Paul King, fmr UC Berkeley Redwood Center for Theoretical Neuroscience

_What we call "thought" can be viewed as an internal behavior that generates and transforms transient beliefs and potential actions into new beliefs and new potential actions. These potential actions are prioritized according to their expected effectiveness and translated into evolving internal goals and planned actions. Throughout all of this, extensive feedback pathways in the brain keep the various representational maps aligned and consistent with each other._


----------



## SteCenturion (26 Aug 2017)

Colin_P said:


> Bollocks.
> 
> Does he still have his bollocks? More importantly is your woofer a 'classical liberal' like my woofer is. I don't think they can help it, where as cats are just intolerant hedonistic nazi a'oles, well my cat is. When I mean classical liberal, my dog is firm but fair, doesn't bully other dogs into thinking thoughts that they approve of but will get growly if other dogs start to take the mick. He also thinks small dogs are left wing and are out of touch with the real dog world.


By far the best post so far !


----------



## slowmotion (26 Aug 2017)

User said:


> So you can google and paste...


I rather liked it. Are all links forbidden now? Do we have to do all the thinking ourselves?
[media]
]View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2gJamguN04[/media]


----------



## Pedalbob (26 Aug 2017)

Thought can be pictured


----------



## Illaveago (26 Aug 2017)

Pedalbob said:


> Thought can be pictured


Downhill skier's and Bob sleigh drivers do a similar thing before going down the course. Visualization I think the term is.

I can remember a programme years ago which featured a young chap who after having caught a virus discovered that he could learn languages really quickly. He also discovered that he could do amazing mathematical sums by visualizing numbers as different coloured shapes which would then become another coloured shape.
I find it hard to understand how the process works but we are all different and have our own way of doing things.


----------



## Shut Up Legs (26 Aug 2017)

This is one of the best CycleChat threads I've read for a long time, and from its beginning you'd never have guessed it would be this interesting.


----------



## Sharky (26 Aug 2017)

13 pages long already - good job it's not National Dog Day today


----------



## SpokeyDokey (26 Aug 2017)




----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (26 Aug 2017)

Illaveago said:


> Visualization I think the term is.


I do that when I read Accy's threads, visualising him sitting in his pants with his trees, munching away on tins of Pal, with a line of neighbours and the warden outside his door...


----------



## MontyVeda (26 Aug 2017)

Of course animals think... how else can the make a decision in 'fight or flight' situations? They must be able to experience fear and/or courage in order to preserve their existence. They must be able to think 'is this edible', 'can i outrun it', 'can i beat it' and so on just to get through the day. I'm sure i was capable of thinking stuff before i learnt to verbally articulate my thoughts with language... and as for dogs, a growl, a yelp, a pine is what they have to express themselves verbally. 

someone's probably said all this but i haven't read all 13 pages yet.


----------



## S-Express (26 Aug 2017)

CBA to read the whole thread. Surely the real question is - 'does accy cyclist have thoughts?'

Someone may have posted that before, but like I said - the prospect of trawling through 13 pages of one of his threads was simply not appealing, in any way.


----------



## growingvegetables (26 Aug 2017)

S-Express said:


> CBA to read the whole thread. Surely the real question is - .......


... what other interesting questions, diversions, digressions, and meanderings can the CC chapel come up with?

"CBA?" - your loss, mate


----------



## S-Express (26 Aug 2017)

My loss? Maybe - but I'll take that chance...


----------



## Illaveago (27 Aug 2017)

This has been a thought provoking chat. It may have wandered off track a bit at times and some people may have joined in half way through and not fully understood what the initial question was about.
My wife has just been reading through all of the comments and has been so engrossed in the chat that she feels that she wants to join although she doesn't cycle. She does own a bike, it's just that it hasn't moved.
She says it's because of her phobia's.


----------



## Illaveago (27 Aug 2017)

I'm going to go slightly off track a bit,but a clip of a lecture made me think about the ancient cave drawings.

Where are the caves that must be full of preliminary sketches of scribblings? My parents old encyclopedias have scribbles on every blank page, even the walls of the house have some hidden behind the wallpaper. I cannot see that the images in the caves were their first attempts and they must have gradually improved their techniques.
It was just a thought.


----------



## rich p (27 Aug 2017)

S-Express said:


> My loss? Maybe - but I'll take that chance...


Thanks for popping in to tell us that you can't be bothered to read the thread.
If only more people would be as considerate.


----------



## S-Express (27 Aug 2017)

rich p said:


> Thanks for popping in to tell us that you can't be bothered to read the thread.
> If only more people would be as considerate.



No problem. If you need any other threads glossed over and presumptions made about the outcome, just let me know...


----------



## Prometheus (27 Aug 2017)

Correct

Time for some more fuel on the fire.
It’s not do we think but how we think that is the question.
How do we organise our thoughts into coherent pattens so we can accurately
model the world?

Too types of Brain’s I recognised so far (as pointed out)
1 Visual memory: this is like a string of photo’s as on your phone.
You just open one to get all the detail’s
Extremely good spatial qualities these people have a full CAD computer program
in there head.
Techno supremos but not very social people, if you chat to them in the Lab with the lights flashing.
Your answer will be “Don’t talk to me now, this Lab isn’t blast proof” Ciba-geigy.

2 Vocal memory: words phases and sounds are tied as memory’s.
(this is not complete needs a citation)
Very social people with good verbal skills work in sales, marketing, social workers, Politician’s.

No Techno perception at all after a meeting lasting 4 hours,
it will take 43 of them to????? (this is not complete needs a citation)


----------



## S-Express (27 Aug 2017)

Prometheus said:


> *Too* types of Brain*’s* I recognised so far (as pointed out)
> 1 Visual memory: this is like a string of photo*’s* as on your phone.
> You just open one to get all the detail*’s*
> Extremely good spatial qualities these people have a full CAD computer program
> ...



There is a third type. A type which cannot spell 'two' and also incorrectly adds an apostrophe before almost every 's'.


----------



## Prometheus (27 Aug 2017)

S-Express said:


> There is a third type. A type which cannot spell 'two' and also incorrectly adds an apostrophe before almost every 's'.



Then now we have four type,s
We had one at Sckool the nit nurse


----------



## S-Express (27 Aug 2017)

Prometheus said:


> We had one at Sckool the nit nurse



You may call it nit picking - I call it 'correcting dreadful grammar, spelling and punctuation', sorry about that.

Anyway, you should be thanking me.


----------



## nickyboy (27 Aug 2017)

S-Express said:


> You may call it nit picking - I call it 'correcting dreadful grammar, spelling and punctuation', sorry about that.
> 
> Anyway, you should be thanking me.



I used to be a bit of a nit picker about grammar and punctuation like you are. But I came to realise that the overriding premise of language is communication. If communication can be effective, even with grammatical or punctuation "errors" (which in truth are merely conventions in any case), I'm cool with it. I'm sufficiently tuned in to be able to use context to know what someone is trying to say, even with "errors"


----------



## Tin Pot (27 Aug 2017)

nickyboy said:


> I used to be a bit of a nit picker about grammar and punctuation like you are. But I came to realise that the *overriding premise of language is communication*. If communication can be effective, even with grammatical or punctuation "errors" (which in truth are merely conventions in any case), I'm cool with it. I'm sufficiently tuned in to be able to use context to know what someone is trying to say, even with "errors"



Which is where you are _wrong_ - and you have picked the perfect thread to trot out that nonsense.

Good communication, good grammar, clear message are also good, clear thought. Correcting your sloppy thought makes you a better thinker.

Edit: I'm pouncing on the idea, not you, no offence intended.


----------



## S-Express (27 Aug 2017)

nickyboy said:


> I used to be a bit of a nit picker about grammar and punctuation like you are. But I came to realise that the overriding premise of language is communication. If communication can be effective, even with grammatical or punctuation "errors" (which in truth are merely conventions in any case), I'm cool with it. I'm sufficiently tuned in to be able to use context to know what someone is trying to say, even with "errors"



I understood what he was saying, that wasn't the issue. Pointing out one error would be 'nit picking'. Pointing out a pervasive misunderstanding about how to use apostrophes and how you don't need one before an 's' in order to pluralise a word is not 'nit picking' - it's more like a public service.


----------



## SpokeyDokey (27 Aug 2017)

This thought provoking thread has provoked yet another thought in my old bonce:

I am now wondering if dogs communicating en-masse emulate humans when they have a group discussion (sorry: chat) inasmuch as; do their cogitations descend into nit-picking and bitchy-ness as well?


----------



## nickyboy (27 Aug 2017)

Tin Pot said:


> Which is where you are _wrong_ - and you have picked the perfect thread to trot out that nonsense.
> 
> Good communication, good grammar, clear message are also good, clear thought. Correcting your sloppy thought makes you a better thinker.



We have a divergence of thought regarding the manner and purpose of communication which is fine. I'm more interested in what people say (or write) rather than whether they remain within the strictures of "good grammar/spelling".

It is possible to have clear thought without complying with the conventions of spelling and grammar.


----------



## S-Express (27 Aug 2017)

nickyboy said:


> It is possible to have clear thought without complying with the conventions of spelling and grammar.



But it becomes very difficult to communicate it clearly, through a written medium, without it.


----------



## Tin Pot (27 Aug 2017)

S-Express said:


> But it becomes very difficult to communicate it clearly, through a written medium, without it.



And even harder to prove that that thinking is clear.


----------



## marinyork (27 Aug 2017)

Tin Pot said:


> Good communication, good grammar, clear message are also good, clear thought. Correcting your sloppy thought makes you a better thinker.



Woof.


----------



## classic33 (27 Aug 2017)

marinyork said:


> Woof.


Get down Shep?


----------



## Ming the Merciless (27 Aug 2017)

Language is necessary for communication not for thought.


----------



## classic33 (27 Aug 2017)

YukonBoy said:


> Language is necessary for communication not for thought.


What language does the brain use?


----------



## rich p (27 Aug 2017)

S-Express said:


> There is a third type. A type which cannot spell 'two' and also incorrectly adds an apostrophe before almost every 's'.


Given that you have confessed earlier to not having bothered to read the thread, one can only wonder why you're back here worrying about punctuation and grammar.


----------



## S-Express (27 Aug 2017)

rich p said:


> Given that you have confessed earlier to not having bothered to read the thread, one can only wonder why you're back here worrying about punctuation and grammar.



'Wondering' is an integral part of the thought process, so carry on...


----------



## Illaveago (27 Aug 2017)

classic33 said:


> What language does the brain use?


English, otherwise I wouldn't know what I was thinking.


----------



## robjh (27 Aug 2017)

classic33 said:


> What language does the brain use?


After only 15 pages this thread is settling into an endless loop. I expect someone will be along shortly to ask how animals think.


----------



## classic33 (27 Aug 2017)

robjh said:


> After only 15 pages this thread is settling into an endless loop. I expect someone will be along shortly to ask how animals think.


Someone likened their brain to a computer.


----------



## Illaveago (27 Aug 2017)

Animals seem to have dreams, they will pant,twitch, and sometimes make sounds, so it seems to suggest that they do think.


----------



## Illaveago (28 Aug 2017)

User said:


> You can always tell when Jack is dreaming of chasing rabbits...


It's fun at times seeing just how involved they are in their dreams.


----------



## raleighnut (28 Aug 2017)

User said:


> You can always tell when Jack is dreaming of chasing rabbits...


How do you know it's rabbits he's chasing though ?


----------



## twentysix by twentyfive (28 Aug 2017)

User13710 said:


> Do androids dream of electric sheep?


Only when they can't get to sleep. One, two, three, zzzzzzzzzzzz


----------



## Reynard (28 Aug 2017)

Illaveago said:


> Animals seem to have dreams, they will pant,twitch, and sometimes make sounds, so it seems to suggest that they do think.



Yup, you can definitely see when Poppy and Lexi are dreaming about catching mousies. We get twitchy paws, wiggly whiskers and the odd "brrrrrrp". It's rather sweet really.


----------

