[a_gnostic]

Oftentimes I find myself understanding complex concepts before I can describe them, even internally. I am sure everyone has this, as I often read comments praising others' submissions for formulating their thoughts efficiently. So thoughts occur independent of language, but need it to be expressed and shared, even if through pictures and sounds.

[vaidhy]

Thoughts occur independent of language is same as saying sentient beings think. The question is does the thought you have depend on the language?

I speak tamil and english and can distinctly see how the language drives some of my understanding. If you have a language that has evolved to describe 3D space, would be understand spatial ideas better/faster?

If we are pattern matching creatures, then the patterns are built over a period of time and our earliest scaffolding for the patterns come from our mother tongue (or the languages learnt in early childhood). Subsequent understanding depends on building and expanding on those patterns.

[a_gnostic]

I grew up trilingual, and have noticed that I understand mechanical concepts better in one language, industrial concepts in another… but have mostly defaulted to English nowadays. I find learning new concepts easier by playing translation games; Which language is the root for this word, and how does it mechanically relate to the concept?

[red75prime]

I a programmer I have to make a sharp distinction between "feeling of understanding" and understanding. The former can easily dissolve when you try to operationalize it, that is to make something that works based on the feeling that you understand it as opposed to producing a string of words based on that feeling.

[coldtea]

>So thoughts occur independent of language

Independent of language as the conscious surface level mechanism, maybe - as in, they don't have to be in English, say. But independent of language altogether, including symbolic language encoded into brain structures, I wouldn't be so sure.

Language doesn't have to mean conscious internal monologue.

[interroboink]

> Language doesn't have to mean conscious internal monologue.

Agreed, but boy do I wish we had better words (ha!) for this.

Calling everything "language" even if someone internally has a more visual or tactile or some other kind of "internal grammar" really gives an unfortunate tilt to casual conversation.

For most people, in everyday discussion, "language" means words/text. I wish we had some term for "structured knowledge" that did not rely on the words/text analogy, since it can leave different-minded people feeling a bit sidelined.

[codethief]

Sounds like a description of understanding a concept in some latent space while not having fully verbalized it yet. (:

[lo_zamoyski]

Expression is not language. What you're having trouble doing is expressing what you understand.

[Jensson]

But that would be an impossibility if understanding requires expressing it in language.

[coldtea]

The thinking language doesn't have to be the same thing as the expression language.

It can still have a language form (manipulation of groups of symbolic structures, terms, and associations), but doesn't have to be English, or even at the conscious "internal monologue" level.

[red75prime]

How can you know that it's symbolic if you have no conscious access to it? Processes happen in the brain, some results in explicit symbolic representation, others not so much. Bringing "language" into this does not achieve much besides the fact that language we use to communicate plays some role in internal monologue.

[coldtea]

>How can you know that it's symbolic if you have no conscious access to it?

Well, it has to be able refer to things (it can't include the actual objects), not to mention handle abstractions and concepts.

An animal can do that with direct response/manipulation/pointing etc, humans must do it at a symbolic level to handle the world at the level we do.