The difference between thought and speech

[Pattern-chaser]

So outside the semantic issue of what is meant by the word 'speech', and not resorting to an 'internal tokenized structure' definition, is it not the case that I was thinking the day before I exited my mother's womb and if so and if primal screams are not considered 'speech' then does thought not precede speech? Is speech not just an external expression of internal concepts?

Well yes, speech is surely an "external expression of internal concepts". But if those concepts (thoughts) are not internally rendered in the form of speech, how are they represented, and by what, in what form? I.e. if thoughts are not composed of words, what are they composed of?

[keztoo]

Are they not simply our internalization of external stimuli. Frege says a concept is an area with fuzzy boundaries so who am I to argue. Regarding how do they come to be, one of the first might be that shortly after my umbilical cord is cut I get some sensory input and it tells me I have an odd pain in my belly. The concept of hunger has just been created and not knowing how to fix it I do the only thing I can think of which is to scream until a tit is placed in my mouth. This appeases me and the pain goes away. Now I have several new concepts and I can start manipulating them from there. The bias I naturally impart on the internalization process guarantees a unique response to all new input and so we are left with a bunch of individuals who coalesce around a set of commonly held misconceptions to arrive at a set of Platonic forms which we use to communicate.

[Empiricist-Bruno]

Yesterday, I wrote a text messagel to a friend about the COVID-19 situation, letting him know that my comments represented what my 'thoughts' were on the current situation. And then the word ' thought' triggered memory of my last reply here and so I edited my text so that it now reads that what I write to him is my opinion on the current situation and not my 'thoughts' as these are in my brain and they aren't representable.

Ways of thinking induced by an apparently innocent way to spin a phrase can get ingrained in you before you can notice the damage this is doing. Here, in this previous sentence, 'Ways of thinking' isn't correct as the expression should refer to ways of recording speech. That's not it there.

For instance, our geological rock record that informs us of the dinosaurs may certainly be a way of thinking as nature records the events of our natural history. But if you start argueing that 'thought' is being recorded in the sedimentary rock record, some people might think you need to be locked up. What's that thought police phone number again? Now that's another wrongful expression but you get the idea.

[keztoo]

Three individuals walking briefly cross paths with something. The first believes it to be a small bear, the second a large deer while the third saw an enormous racoon. The same input was uniquely internalized so each could be storing a different incorrect belief as a result of the same input. Each can represent the concept of a different animal to you in the form of speech which is one way the internal concept could be externalized. The geological rock record may be thought of as your interpretation of the externalized information the rock system has previously internalized since even you will be altered by the very act of internalizing stimuli.

[Tegularius]

One is silent; the other is loud.

[Empiricist-Bruno]

One is silent; the other is loud.

So, you can't speak to the deaf community? Haven't you heard of sign language? The silent signs of deaf language do not speak to the deaf community?

Some famous person once said, "I will answer them by the mouth of my canons" Now given how noisy a canon is, surely you would agree to view these arms as speakers. Don't you suspect that your simplistic vision here may not make much sense? Deeds speak, no?

If, by silent, you mean not meaningful then certainly you may have a point... Deaf is indeed regrettably associated with dumb.

[Empiricist-Bruno]

One is silent; the other is loud.

So, you can't speak to the deaf community? Haven't you heard of sign language? The silent signs of deaf language do not speak to the deaf community?

Some famous person once said, "I will answer them by the mouth of my canons" Now given how noisy a canon is, surely you would agree to view these arms as speakers. Don't you suspect that your simplistic vision here may not make much sense? Deeds speak, no?

If, by silent, you mean not meaningful then certainly you may have a point... Deaf is indeed regrettably associated with dumb.

If inner speech is silent because it is made of though then, how can you hear yourself thinking? If you don't hear your thoughts then how do you know you are thinking?

[Tegularius]

One is silent; the other is loud.

So, you can't speak to the deaf community? Haven't you heard of sign language? The silent signs of deaf language do not speak to the deaf community?

Some famous person once said, "I will answer them by the mouth of my canons" Now given how noisy a canon is, surely you would agree to view these arms as speakers. Don't you suspect that your simplistic vision here may not make much sense? Deeds speak, no?

If, by silent, you mean not meaningful then certainly you may have a point... Deaf is indeed regrettably associated with dumb.

Sign language is sign language a different means of communicating than speech which, as everyone knows, is by means of sound. Clearly the two are not the same in their communication methods. The OP referred to speech.

[Empiricist-Bruno]

One is silent; the other is loud.

So, you can't speak to the deaf community? Haven't you heard of sign language? The silent signs of deaf language do not speak to the deaf community?

Some famous person once said, "I will answer them by the mouth of my canons" Now given how noisy a canon is, surely you would agree to view these arms as speakers. Don't you suspect that your simplistic vision here may not make much sense? Deeds speak, no?

If, by silent, you mean not meaningful then certainly you may have a point... Deaf is indeed regrettably associated with dumb.

Sign language is sign language a different means of communicating than speech which, as everyone knows, is by means of sound. Clearly the two are not the same in their communication methods. The OP referred to speech.

Here is a quick copy and paste of the dictionary meaning of
'speech':
spēch
noun
The faculty or act of speaking.
The faculty or act of expressing or describing thoughts, feelings, or perceptions by the articulation of words.
What is spoken or expressed, as in conversation; uttered or written words.

So you reject the words conveyed by sign language? Or you are saying there are no words there in the signs of sign language because to articulate is according to you strictly limited to sound communication? The above definition also includes written words but you say signed words would be inadmissible because everyone knows 'speech' refers to a voice produced communication? Nice try to catch me here, but in my opinion, it just shows that what you think everyone knows about speech isn't known by those who write dictionaries, ha ha.

As far as 'means of communication' are concerned, I would rank 'speech'--as a speaker uttering words before an audience-- on the exact same level as 'signing' by sign language speakers/ signers. Sign language is no more different from speech as English is different from French.

Before a word is word, it is meaning first and from there, it can make a record, or thought but that thought needs to be heard by the mind and it is made by your inner voice that does not produce worldly sound but is able to produce audible mind sound. When I say 'audible' mind sound, I am talking about hearing meaning and deaf people can, with the use of signs, hear meaning just as well as a hearing people.

The phone is also a means of communication and I certainly do not rank such means of communication along with speech, as nothing but thoughts can be expressed by those devices because it's logged speech. I am arguing here that a record of speech is the essence of a 'thought'.

[Tegularius]

Sign language is a visual language; in effect you hear by sight. Speech is an aural language which you hear with your ears.

As visual, hearing is not necessary; as aural, sight is not necessary.

Why does something so obvious have to be pointed out!

[Pattern-chaser]

Sign language is a visual language; in effect you hear by sight. Speech is an aural language which you hear with your ears.

As visual, hearing is not necessary; as aural, sight is not necessary.

Why does something so obvious have to be pointed out!

As sign language is a bona fide language, it must also be included in the concept of speech, even though the literal (dictionary) meaning does not. There is no law that this must be so, as you know, but common sense is screaming loudly here, and I will abide by her wishes. I think you should too.

[Tegularius]

Sign language is a visual language; in effect you hear by sight. Speech is an aural language which you hear with your ears.

As visual, hearing is not necessary; as aural, sight is not necessary.

Why does something so obvious have to be pointed out!

As sign language is a bona fide language, it must also be included in the concept of speech, even though the literal (dictionary) meaning does not. There is no law that this must be so, as you know, but common sense is screaming loudly here, and I will abide by her wishes. I think you should too.

I don't deny that sign language is a "bona fide language" and in that sense linguistic though non-verbal. Since language denotes communication it can be no other. But the medium through which it communicates is not speech but sight being different processing areas of the brain. Speech is the movement of tongue and lips forming sounds. Sign language is the movement of arms and hands gesturing systematically along with facial expressions whose meaning is almost immediately understood.

Sign Language vs Spoken Language

The difference between sign language and spoken language is in the way they convey information. In the modern world, a number of languages are in use. Some of these are spoken languages while others are sign languages. These two types of languages are different from one another and should be viewed as natural languages. A spoken language can be understood as an auditory and a vocal language. A sign language is a language where gestures and facial expressions are used in order to convey information. This is the main difference between the two languages. However, it has to be stated that both languages can be used to convey all sorts of information. It can be news, conversations about day to day activities, stories, narrations, etc. Through this article let us examine the differences between the two languages.

[Empiricist-Bruno]

Sign language is a visual language; in effect you hear by sight. Speech is an aural language which you hear with your ears.

As visual, hearing is not necessary; as aural, sight is not necessary.

Why does something so obvious have to be pointed out!

As sign language is a bona fide language, it must also be included in the concept of speech, even though the literal (dictionary) meaning does not. There is no law that this must be so, as you know, but common sense is screaming loudly here, and I will abide by her wishes. I think you should too.

Very nice reply here PC. I wasn't going to answer Tegu's post as I felt it was too far beneath me, but your reply here is absolutely solid, thanks.

But what is being missed in all of that and what I see that I need to draw your attention to a key aspect of either sight or hearing:
You guys know the saying, "One sees well only with the heart" it's also possible to hear spoken words and not hear them at the same time, as if they entered one ear and left through the other.
So what I am referring to is that we can hear and see in a way that has nothing to do with sights and sounds because this grasping is of meaning and meaning, although it exists and can be heard or seen, it has nothing to do with worldly sounds or does not emit or reflect light into the world.

There isn't too many people going around trying to draw your attention to this and when someone like me does that, some people feel they need to remind me that I am not saying the common thing as if I were a baby perhaps unable to manage the stairs. But my consolation here is that at least it is being noted that I am saying something different, and so my message-- although apparently unappreciated-- is indeed not completely misunderstood. If it were completely misunderstood then people would believe that I my opinions are well within conservative viewpoints.

So why is it that meaning can be heard and seen but it's totally unlike worldly sounds and light that can also be seen and heard?
Now, if you don't have an answer or a theory as to why this is and do not think you need to explain this, then that's fine, just feel free to move along; there are other posts for you to enjoy.

My reply to the above question touches upon the essence of my theory here and so it needs to be discussed. My point is that speech comes in two forms: inner speech and outspoken speech.
Now, if you disagree with this, and think that speech is either visual or auditory --as per the above discussion -- well that's great. Feel free to start another thread to remind us of that fact, or perhaps just to remind me of this. But here, I would issue the opinion that that reply is a dead end.

I am honestly a little concerned about sharing more of my concepts and ideas given the chill reception but it hasn't been completely cold and I still have a bit of enthusiasm left for it and so here is the chinaware: We think in imagination but that imagination is not the same as the imagination of a camera. Just like you can see or hear either imaginary or real things, you can also imagine real or fictive things. I am stating here that humanity in general has not learned to effectively tell the difference between what's real and what is not and when it's possible to tell the difference and I am trying to contribute a little concept here that will make a helpful difference with this.

Ok, so the basic concept that needs to be repeated is 'thought' is a record of speech and that speech, imagination, and hearing also come in two basic form: the inner type and the worldly type. The production of speech in either one of it's two basic forms will cause thought to appear.

Now one interesting argument or point that could be made is when a person reads outloud notes made and provided by another. Can you consider this as speech? Is a reading 'speech'? Now my answer to this is that when a speaker isn't giving you a message of his/her own but that the communication he orates is like the communication that a radio players blurts then, that speaker isn't speaking; he/she is thinking because all the person says is the thought from the paper. So, thoughts can indeed be voiced but not along the lines of a person saying, "My thoughts on this issue is..." as if trying to inform you of their opinion on a certain point No, to be expressed thought, you really need to be like a player that lifts thought from a record for the purpose of re-creating the original speech. So are we all now on the same page?

[Pattern-chaser]

I don't deny that sign language is a "bona fide language" and in that sense linguistic though non-verbal. Since language denotes communication it can be no other. But the medium through which it communicates is not speech but sight being different processing areas of the brain. Speech is the movement of tongue and lips forming sounds. Sign language is the movement of arms and hands gesturing systematically along with facial expressions whose meaning is almost immediately understood.

There does seem to be some commonality, perhaps more than you thought?

Do spoken and signed languages rely on the same areas of the brain?

The parts of the brain active in sign language processing are very similar to those involved in spoken language processing. When we compare the brain scans of deaf people watching sign language and hearing people listening to speech, there is significant overlap, especially in the core areas. This suggests that these areas do not distinguish between information coming in through the eyes or the ears.

There are, of course some differences...

Link to full article.

[Pattern-chaser]

As sign language is a bona fide language, it must also be included in the concept of speech, even though the literal (dictionary) meaning does not. There is no law that this must be so, as you know, but common sense is screaming loudly here, and I will abide by her wishes. I think you should too.

But what is being missed in all of that and what I see that I need to draw your attention to a key aspect of either sight or hearing:
You guys know the saying, "One sees well only with the heart" it's also possible to hear spoken words and not hear them at the same time, as if they entered one ear and left through the other.

So what I am referring to is that we can hear and see in a way that has nothing to do with sights and sounds because this grasping is of meaning and meaning, although it exists and can be heard or seen, it has nothing to do with worldly sounds or does not emit or reflect light into the world.

8<

So why is it that meaning can be heard and seen but it's totally unlike worldly sounds and light that can also be seen and heard?

I wonder if what you are focussing-on here is perception, as opposed to sensation? The process of transforming raw sense data into something meaningful is what we call 'perception', and it involves many things, few of which have anything directly to do with sights or sounds, as you observe. Is it perception that you describe, or is it more than that?