It is impossible to use or understand language without making the basic logical link between a representation (i.e. the sound, sign, symbol etc.) and the concept being represented. Without that logical link there is no meaning attached and no linguistic communication is possible.
This has certainly been your claim, which you've repeated multiple times and for which you've yet to offer any evidence.
Do we invent language to express concepts or do we invent concepts to meet the requirements of existing language?
I don't think Language is 'invented'; on top of that, I'd say it is most likely that Language and Concepts develop together within the cultural group.
Any reasonably developed human brain contains the conceptual framework required to mentally make sense of the environment it evolved in.
Another claim yet to be supported by evidence. Developing a 'conceptual framework' is a pretty massive and intensive process; I've seen no evidence to date showing that such a task is possible without Language.
A conceptual framework for things like space, time, substance, number, causality, intention as well as the conceptual ability to make logical connections between these things. It is from this conceptual framework that all human languages are derived.
Evidence for this?
Are you familiar with Chomsky's theory of universal grammar at all?
Of course; and it's about as unevidenced as the claims you've so far been making.
The rarity of languageless people case studies (and their acquisition of language) is what makes them so valuable as insights into what abilities are and are not related to language.
Yes, but all you have to report on such folk are talltalesyou've linked not to a singe
scientific study of these people or their abilities. And even the reports to which you have linked only support what you've said very tenuously and under the influence of a heavy load of unsubstantiated assumptions.
Combine these with the (also rare but equally important) case studies of those with brain disorders that result in high linguistic ability but little comprehension (or vice versa) - And the conclusion that language is not essential for abstract thought seems clear.
If you believe these case studies support your position, then please offer some links to them. The ones I've seen do not demonstrate at all the notion that higher-level thinking is possible without linguistic abilities.
Yes - The languageless humans in the case studies I have provided.
If that is all the evidence you have for your position, then I'm afraid your claims are seriously undersupported.
Are you still asserting that language is required for abstract thought? If so on what evidential basis?
I'm asserting that all the evidence we know of so far tells us that individuals (human or not) who do not possess, and/or never have possessed, normal linguistic abilities are not capable of normal higher-level thinking (what I believe you call 'abstract thought').
Presenting evidence to the contrary would, interestingly, be your job, and not mine. My role is simply telling you whether the evidence is convincing or not; so far it all sucks.
ABE: Reply to
Message 268
So what types of thinking are required for the most basic of "religious" beliefs?
At the very least propositional thoughts.
I would say the following types of thinking are needed - An ability to ascribe intent. An ability to comprehend cause and effect. Then the ability to combine the two in the form of some conscious agent (whether "perceived" or imagined/dreamed).
Okay; that's a startperhaps.
All the evidence indicates that all these forms of thought are available to intelligent non-humans such as chimps.
Whatever this evidence might be, it is certainly not the evidence you've so far been presenting.
In fact far from requiring language as a basis for such forms of thinking the evidence suggests that human language is derived from these evolutionary originating conceptual frameworks
Do you have any evidence for this?
Jon
Edited by Jon, : added reply
Edited by Jon, : clarity
Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr
™ Version 4.2
